On the recordJune 12, 2013
I thank my colleague for those questions, and they are all pretty obvious. No. 1, we have costed this out. CBO will judge whether we are correct. We have made the bill revenue neutral. In fact, we have a slight surplus. The huge cost of 6,500 border agents without any allocation where they would go--do you know what. If this were another bill, my colleague from Texas and all of his colleagues would say we are wasting billions of dollars with no plan. He is exactly right on that point. On the second point, I have said, until I am blue in the face, sometimes from some criticism from some of the people who are my allies out there, that I am willing to look at changes in this bill. It is so unfair and patently false to say any one of the Group of 8 said we can't change the bill. We welcome changes to improve it. What happened in committee proves that. The third point, I would say to my colleague, the way the Senator from Texas constructs the trigger, there will be no one who will ever achieve a path to citizenship because he leaves out turnbacks. If we don't have turnbacks--the 90 percent causes us trouble even with the way it was done in other areas, with other suggestions. If we leave out turnbacks, people who are turned back or caught, and we say go home, we will never get to 90 percent. To say the proposal of the Senator from Texas allows a path to citizenship--it makes it virtually impossible. Therefore, again, I would say I wish to improve border security.…





