Speech #CREC-2018-01-08-pt1-PgS53_t0

GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues to offer remarks about the current status of the negotiations on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA Program, as it is known in the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, this body still isn't closer to a legitimate and fair deal that accomplishes two goals: First of all, to promote and protect the interests of the American people in a lawful immigration system and, two, provide a fair and equitable solution on DACA. Back in December, I introduced a bill, along with Senators Cornyn, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton. The bill, with the acronym SECURE Act of 2017, was a product of months of discussion between this Senator, these other Senators I just named, and the White House. Our plan, simply put, has five pillars. First, based on the hard work and leadership of Senator Cornyn, our bill provided real, robust border security by mandating the construction of tactical and technological infrastructure at the border. Second, our bill took meaningful steps to end the lawlessness of dangerous criminal aliens by cracking down on sanctuary cities, ending the misguided catch-and-release policies of the previous administration, and, finally, taking steps to address intentional visa overstays. Third, our bill took steps to eliminate many of the ``pull'' factors that encourage people to immigrate illegally by permanently authorizing the E-Verify Program and by taking meaningful steps to reduce immigration court and asylum adjudication backlogs. Fourth, thanks to the leadership and advocacy of Senators Graham, Perdue, and Cotton, our bill eliminated the phenomenon known as chain migration and made a major downpayment toward transitioning to a merit- based immigration system. Fifth, and finally, our bill provided a bipartisan solution to protect undocumented young people brought to the United States as children by adopting Senator Durbin's Bar Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy--that has the acronym BRIDGE Act. Our plan was fair, serious, and bipartisan. Most importantly, it was and is pro-American. As I have continually said since the bill's introduction, this group of Senators is ready and willing to negotiate with our counterparts in good faith and to find an equitable solution to the DACA situation that incorporates our bill's five pillars of reform. I said negotiate. I had at least one Democratic Senator infer that I could not negotiate in good faith because I did not vote for the Gang of 8 immigration bill in 2013. So, sadly, our good-faith offers have consistently been rejected by Democratic leadership. Instead, they decide to engage in a game of brinksmanship. So I ask several questions: Why doesn't Democratic leadership negotiate with us? Because we refuse to simply pass what is referred to as the Dream Act, as is, with no proportional border security and interior enforcement majors. As the Democrats see it, it is take it or leave it, their way or the highway. This isn't good faith, this isn't negotiating, and that approach is doomed to failure. I have to ask: Why do my colleagues in the Democratic leadership refuse to even consider measures that would beef up border security and interior enforcement? Do they want people to continue to immigrate to this country illegally? Do they want sex offenders and human traffickers to continue to manipulate our porous border and enter our country unchecked? Do they want criminal illegal immigrants--people like Jose Zarate, who murdered Kate Steinle, or Eswin Mejia, who killed Sarah Root, to roam free in our country? Are they comfortable allowing criminal alien gangs like MS-13, whose motto happens to be ``kill, rape, and control,'' to continue to terrorize immigrant communities? I am assuming--in fact, I am hoping--the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. If that is correct, then why does Democratic leadership refuse to discuss the border security and interior enforcement provisions in the SECURE Act? Despite the hysteria and the hyperbole you may hear from pro-amnesty, open-border immigrant advocates, the SECURE Act does not contain draconian enforcement measures. If anything, our bill contains the commonsense security and enforcement measures this body has been debating, discussing, and considering for years. Our bill adds new Border Patrol agents, U.S. attorneys, and judges to make it easier to apprehend, prosecute, and deport illegal entrants and criminal aliens. We authorize money for critically necessary port of entry and exit improvements so we can know who is here, how long they are here, and when they left--if they left. Our bill increases criminal penalties for human smugglers, these offenses that are committed by repeat offenders, often resulting in death, resulting in human trafficking, and including even sexual assault. We also increase penalties for criminal aliens who commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. Our bill makes clear that individuals who engage in acts of terrorism, criminal gang members, aggravated felons, and drunk drivers are not admissible to our country, and makes it clear that they can be put into expedited removal if they somehow make it into our country. Finally, our bill permanently authorizes the voluntary E-Verify Program, and it also provides incentives for employers to participate in that voluntary program. It doesn't make E-Verify mandatory. It just provides employers certainty by making the program permanent. I hope, as I described these things, they are seen as commonsense measures. Why would my colleagues on the other side ever want to oppose those provisions? It wasn't that long ago that many Democrats supported border security and interior enforcement. I would like to list some quotes from recent Democratic Presidents who supported some of these propositions. In his 1996 State of the Union Address, then-President Clinton championed his actions to crack down on illegal immigration. He proudly noted his administration was ``increasing border patrol by 50 percent . . . [and] increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants.'' In 2006, then-Senator, later President Obama spoke in favor of enhanced border security and enforcement measures. He acknowledged, even then, that ``we need tougher border security, stronger enforcement measures . . . [we] need more resources for Customs and Border Agents, and more detention beds.'' When speaking in favor of the Secure Fence Act, Mr. Obama said: It would ``certainly do some good'' and would go a long way in ``stem[ming] . . . the tide of illegal immigration in this country.'' Do my colleagues no longer agree with former Presidents Clinton and Obama? Do they no longer believe we need to stem the tide of illegal immigration? My colleagues on the other side consistently talk about how DACA kids shouldn't be used as bargaining chips for any potential deal. What about the innocent American citizens they are using as bargaining chips? What about the thousands of victims every year of crimes committed by dangerous criminal aliens?