John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think we have said about all there is to say. Maybe we said it several times. I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts pointing out page 362 of the bill. This is a voluminous bill, but my reading of this bill says that the section the Senator quoted only applies to the applicant and that application. In other words, if somebody fills out an application and is denied, then a criminal prosecution investigation may be had only against that applicant, but there are limitations which prohibit its distribution to third parties for purposes of investigating an organized crime syndicate or potentially terrorist links. There seems to be no commonsense reason why we would limit the availability of a document and that information, when it could well root out crimes involving hundreds and maybe even thousands of instances of fraud. I believe the amendment strikes a balance. It is not designed to undermine the compromise that we have heard so much about. Indeed, this is to make sure that the underlying bill actually has a chance to work and isn't undermined by the fraud that has been so well documented underlying the 1986 amnesty but, rather, to fight that fraud and help build public confidence that we are serious about making this work. Much of the problem with the 1986 amnesty was that it granted amnesty to 3 million people. The tradeoff was supposed to be effective work site verification to make sure that people who are qualified to work legally could work and those who were not could not and to sanction employers who cheat. But unless we have a system in place that will actually make it work, then all of the discussion about a comprehensive plan is a ruse. It will not work. While I do have some differences with the Senator from Massachusetts about what this comprehensive immigration reform plan ought to look like, I trust we will be able to work on that some more when we get to conference with the House. My goal is to actually make sure it will work. He and I share that common goal, I believe. The amendment I have offered helps make that more likely. I am prepared to yield back.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the provisions in the underlying bill are the same as those contained in the 1986 act that was the subject of so much fraud. I suggest that while we are all entitled to our own opinion, we are not entitled to our own set of facts. The facts are that the same provisions in this underlying bill are in the 1986 act. We can do better, and we can make this work. We can avoid the 400,000 fraudulent applications that tarnished the concept behind the 1986 bill. I see the Senator from Alabama. May I inquire how many more minutes we have on this side?

Mr. CORNYN. I am prepared to yield to the Senator from Alabama 3 minutes and retain 1 minute as the balance of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. We will yield back our time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts, but looking at the page he refers to on page 38 of the bill, it says: Not later than October 26, 2007, every document, other than an interim document, issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security . . . shall be machine-readable and tamper- resistant. . . . I certainly applaud that aspirational goal. I would just note that just within the past few days, though, we have postponed the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative card for another 18 months. There is no certainty that will happen by that date. What happens in the interim? Let me just provide a couple of examples. In 1995, Jose Velez, was found guilty of immigration fraud after he filed fraudulent applications under the 1986 amnesty. Let me just parenthetically note, in talking to Emilio Gonzalez, the current head of Citizenship and Immigration Services, he tells me there is still litigation over some of the cases covered by the 1986 amnesty--still in litigation. But getting back to Mr. Velez's case, he said the task force that brought down Velez resulted in the guilty pleas or convictions of 20 individuals who together are responsible for filing false legalization applications for in excess of 11,000 unqualified aliens. Between March of 1988 and January of 1991, Velez and his coconspirators submitted approximately 3,000 fraudulent applications. In connection with the 1986 legalization program, there were 920 arrests, 822 indictments, and 513 convictions for fraud and related criminal activity. I would just return to something I said at the outset. What we are talking about in this amendment is essentially the same language contained in the Violence Against Women Act. The language in that act, which was designed to protect battered women and family members, states that the confidentiality provisions end ``when the application for relief is denied and all opportunities for appeal of the denial have been exhausted.'' I would suggest, if that language is good enough for the protection of women against whom violence has been committed, isn't it good enough for a worker who is simply out of status? This amendment is not designed to undercut the compromise or the overall structure of the plan that is on the floor. This is designed to make it work. I want to make sure we are committed not only to comprehensive immigration reform but that we are actually going to make it work. That is all this amendment does. I ask for the support of my colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the floor and retain the remainder of our time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Memorial Day is a day we have set aside to remember those who have given their lives--``the last full measure of devotion''--in service to our country. As President Abraham Lincoln looked out across the cemetery at Gettysburg, he honored the sacrifice of the soldiers who had died there and how their sacrifices preserved the Union and advanced the cause of freedom. For more than 200 years, men--and later, women--have donned the uniform and met the many challenges of serving our great Nation and the ideals on which it was founded. Countless numbers of them have paid the ultimate price--and we honor them today. Our freedom was not free. It was bought and paid for by the sacrifices of generations that have gone before. We honor these heroes for their courage and for ensuring that our own freedom is more than a dream--that it is indeed a reality. Those who fought in our country's Civil War are long passed. And many of those brave men who served in our World Wars too have passed. Members of what we fondly call the ``greatest generation'' are leaving our midst in record numbers, and we mourn their passing--these brave men who liberated so many from tyranny. They are gone, but they certainly are not forgotten. Memorial Day is not merely the opportunity for a 3-day weekend. It is our duty--indeed, it is our privilege--to reflect on the sacrifices that have paid the price for our freedoms. We must also acknowledge the heroism and sacrifice of our brave men and women currently serving in the Armed Forces. I know I speak for the people of my State of Texas, and for all Americans, when I thank our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines--and their loved ones waiting patiently at home--for their service and their dedication to duty. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, it is my job and my honor to look after the interests of all of our military personnel. We must ensure that the military continues to have the tools it needs to remain the most powerful fighting force the world has ever known. Our Texas military bases are some of the strongest components of our military readiness in the current global war against terror. These valuable assets help to maintain our status as the world's lone superpower, even as we transform our military to face the challenges of the future. Soldiers are not just numbers or statistics. These are real Americans. True patriots. They have real families. When someone leaves home to fight for American interests abroad, it affects their entire community; it affects their friends and, most profoundly, it affects their families. And so while we must remember the sacrifices of the brave men and women who fight on the battlefield, we must also be mindful of the sacrifices of those they leave behind--and so on behalf of a grateful nation, I thank them today, as well. The difference our military is making in the world is undeniable. Just a short while ago, the idea that the Iraqi people could live free was a concept that many would not treat seriously. But the Iraqi people are forging ahead and have formed a unity government and are firmly embracing the opportunities that freedom provides. I wish there were more balance in this discussion about Iraq. There are so many good things happening there--so many good things. And largely, unfortunately, they are left unreported. Recently, Jack Kelly, former marine, Green Beret, and deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force during the Reagan administration, highlighted some of these important stories--for example, the account of marine Sgt Rafael Peralta, who has been posthumously recommended for the Medal of Honor. I quote: ``Sgt. Peralta was killed on Nov. 15, 2004, during the second battle of Fallujah. His squad was clearing a house. Sgt. Peralta was the first into a room where at least three insurgents lay in ambush. He was shot in the chest and the face, but still had the presence of mind to jump into an adjoining room to give the marines behind him a clear field of fire. Four marines maneuvered into the room where Sgt. Peralta lay when an insurgent tossed a grenade into it. Sgt. Peralta pulled the grenade to him and smothered it with his body, saving the others from death or serious injury. Sgt. Rafael Peralta died for a country he loved, but of which he was not yet a citizen. A Mexican immigrant who lived in San Diego, Sgt. Peralta enlisted in the marines the day he received his green card. ``Be proud of being an American,'' Sgt. Peralta had written to his younger brother in the only letter he ever sent him. While this is only one story, there are hundreds more that should be acknowleged. In recent correspondence, Iraqi Freedom veteran Major Mark McDaniel of the 301st Fighter Wing in Fort Worth wrote these words: ``Our efforts there in providing security enabled these courageous people to work through the sectarian issues that existed . . . I believe that this weekend has vindicated our presence and our sacrifices in Iraq. I, and the other members of the 301st Fighter Wing . . . believe in our mission there.'' And we here at home believe in our men and women in uniform--in their courage and the cause of freedom they defend. We must always remember our Nation's heroes and live in a manner worthy of their sacrifice.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I heard the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, talk about this amendment as if this were an agreed- upon amendment. I understand there has been a lot of work put into this amendment. I rise to voice objections to the amendment for a number of reasons I would like to discuss. This is critical. I agree with Senators Grassley and Kennedy that this is the linchpin of this bill. If we don't get this right, then we might as well pitch it in because the fact is that employment and the prospects for employment are the magnets that attract illegal immigrants into the country or people who come legally and overstay in violation of our immigration laws. I think it is important that the very Cabinet member--Secretary Chertoff--who is going to be responsible for enforcing this immigration reform has called this amendment a poison pill. He expressed concerns about the fact that, as currently written--and I understand it is one thing to pass a piece of legislation and expect to improve it in the conference committee, but I think it is absolutely critical that our colleagues understand what it is they are being asked to vote on. The No. 1 concern I have is that it would create a carve-out, until such time as whatever process is developed would produce a rate of 99- percent accuracy, in terms of confirming eligibility of prospective employees to work legally in the United States. A nonanswer would be essentially treated as an approval, and that individual would be then authorized to work permanently in the United States. Once we pass this legislation, if it is passed, and it goes to conference and the differences are worked out and it is signed by the President, we all know this is merely an authorization. This is not an appropriation. In other words, the money to pay for this, to make it happen, is a matter of the appropriations process. That is not what we are doing here. Once the money is appropriated, then we are going to have to see the Department of Homeland Security issue a request for a proposal and ask contractors to bid on creating the database and the system whereby we can verify eligibility of prospective employees. So what we are talking about is a system that is going to take months, if not years, to implement. But even after it is implemented, until such time as it has a 99-percent accuracy rate, essentially what we are saying is the same old broken illegal immigration system of hiring people who are not authorized to work in the United States is OK. The second problem I point out with this amendment is it creates liability on the part of the Federal Government. If, for example, someone submits their credentials and they are refused a job because they are not qualified to work in the United States, what this does is create a litigation system that will prove a disincentive for employers and the Department of Homeland Security to actually even check someone's qualifications as to whether they can work legally in the United States. This was the issue the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Chertoff, took great issue with. He says, as a former judge, you are going to have determinations made, lawsuits filed, and then you are going to have appeals, and perhaps these appeals will take years to finally resolve, and the costs of hiring lawyers and the costs to the Government are going to stack up. What is the easiest way for the Government and that individual at the Department of Homeland Security to avoid incurring those additional costs? It is going to be to give the prospective employee a pass and say: OK, you are fine. It proves a powerful disincentive for checking out the eligibility of that prospective employee. Finally, this system would apply to future employees only. This amendment would limit the period of time in which employers could submit the credentials of this prospective employee to only 3 days. If, for example, they overlooked the matter and didn't do it for 4 days, they would be prohibited for all time from checking whether this individual could legally work in the United States. So I ask, why would we create a system that is designed to fail? That is what this amendment, unfortunately, would do, notwithstanding the hard work that has been put into it. I believe the placeholder in title III is vastly superior to this so-called agreement, which is obviously not agreed to--certainly not by the Cabinet member who is responsible for the Department of Homeland Security and certainly not by this Senator and others who have had a chance to look at this. Each day, approximately 1,300 migrant workers enter the United States to work illegally. The vast majority come here not to commit crimes or cause harm but to work. They are looking only to provide for their families, and we certainly all understand that. But they pay smugglers thousands of dollars and risk their lives crossing the border. They take this risk because they know that once they get into the United States, it won't be difficult to find employers willing to hire them in this black market of human labor. Until the Federal Government removes the magnet of illegal employment, it will not regain control over our broken immigration system. Restricting employment of undocumented workers as a way to reduce illegal immigration is not a new concept. In 1981, the bipartisan Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy recommended legislation making it illegal to hire undocumented workers. In 1997, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform stated that eliminating the employment magnet is the linchpin to a comprehensive strategy to deter unlawful immigration. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform went on to conclude that the most promising option for verifying work authorization is a computerized registry based on the Social Security number. Yet, 25 years later, after 25 years of consensus, current employment verification laws are unworkable and unenforceable. Today the Federal law only requires that employers confirm that employees produced paper documents. There is no general requirement that employers ensure that the paper documents are, indeed, reliable or otherwise take steps to combat fraud. An employer--and this is the problem with the law as it currently stands, not necessarily with employers who are not FBI agents and who are not asking to conduct independent investigations or somehow a forensic examination of the authenticity of these documents, but under the law today an employer must review some combination of more than 20 different documents to determine whether a new worker is legal. In 1996, Congress called for reduction in the number of documents, but 10 years later, the Government has yet to implement those regulations. As a result, document fraud and identity theft makes it easy for unscrupulous employers to look the other way and hire undocumented workers. Yet increasing penalties alone will not work because ambiguities in the law prevent employers from knowing what their obligations are with respect to their workforce. Until there is a way for employers to truly know whether their workforce is legal, it will be difficult for them to comply and difficult for the Government to prosecute those who fail to comply. The result is the Government has all but given up enforcing laws governing the work site. The Government has all but given up. In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security dedicated only 90 full- time employees to work site enforcement--90, for a country of almost 300 million people. In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security issued only three--yes, three--notices of intent to fine employers for violating the work site enforcement laws. In 1992, by contrast, the Department issued more than 1,400 notices of intent to fine. So we went from 1,400 notices of intent to fine for cheating for hiring workers who could not legally work in 1992 to 3 in 2004. So over the past 12 years, those enforcement efforts have declined at a rate of 99.8 percent. In the absence of any enforcement whatsoever, many employers flagrantly violate our laws. Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security arrested several managers at the largest pallet services company in the United States. The Government has charged those managers with conspiring to transport, harbor, and induce illegal aliens to reside in the United States. On the day of their arrest, the Department of Homeland Security also took into custody 1,187 undocumented workers. According to the records, more than 50 percent of the employee records had faulty Social Security numbers, and the Social Security Administration had told the company more than a dozen times that they had more than 1,000 employees without accurate Social Security numbers. I wish I could say the allegations against this company are an isolated event, but they are not. The truth is, many employers make no effort whatsoever to comply with the law. A recent Government Accountability Office report reviewed employer tax filings for the years 1985 through 2000 and found that one employer submitted a single Social Security number--a single Social Security number--for more than 2,580 different employees in a single tax year. Overall, 8,900 employers--just .2 percent of all employers--accounted for more than 30 percent of the total number of incorrect Social Security number submissions. Get this, Mr. President: Of the 84.6 million records placed in the Social Security earnings suspense fund for tax years 1985 to 2000, about 9 million had Social Security numbers that consisted of nothing but zeros. Obviously, the employer knew they were submitting a bogus number, and 9 million submitted nothing but zeros. But in the absence of any enforcement of the law, any incentive to clean up those numbers, any incentive for employers to comply with the law, any infrastructure that allows people to check to determine whether this is a person who can legally work, this is the kind of fraud that occurs. For 3.5 million records, employers used the same Social Security number to report earnings for multiple workers in a single tax year. The truth is, the Government is decades behind the private sector when it comes to document integrity. Maybe what we ought to do is issue a contract and outsource this to MasterCharge and Visa. Maybe they can do a better job. The fact is, this is embarrassing and intolerable and inexcusable conduct on the part of the Federal Government. But there is also reason for hope. There is a model that is already in place. Since 1996, the Federal Government has run an electronic verification system called Basic Pilot. Currently, about 6,000 employers participate in this system. Members of Congress, for example, are required to use this electronic verification system. And it works. That system should be expanded, and that system should be enforced. We simply must require electronic verification by all employers, not just the ones covered by the current law or those who decide to do it on a voluntary basis. Electronic verification has been tested for more than 10 years, and an independent review of the program found that 96 percent of participating employers believed that the electronic verification system is an effective tool for employment verification. Reports have also shown that the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration have made considerable progress in improving the accuracy of data. According to a 2004 report, there is a 99.8-percent confirmation rate for U.S.-born employees. I can assure you, Mr. President, and my colleagues that without work site enforcement, we will be back here again in 10 years trying to figure out what to do with the next wave of illegal immigrants. We cannot afford piecemeal enforcement. We have to secure our border, we have to work with local and State law enforcement agencies to deal with enforcement in the interior, and we have to have an ability to verify on an accurate and expedited basis whether someone can work here legally in the United States. We don't yet have that. This bill does not yet provide it. My hope is that we will get serious, finally, once and for all, in holding employers accountable, those who cheat and who provide that magnet that attracts so many people to come into this country illegally. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. May I inquire how much time is left?

Mr. CORNYN. This amendment would waive deportation for aggravated felons. It would result in a green card, irrespective of legalization, requiring no payment of taxes, no requirement of learning English, and no fine. I believe it would result in the legalization of roughly 6 million individuals under this standard contained in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 20 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, notwithstanding my tremendous admiration and support for the chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Grassley, I must oppose this amendment. Secretary Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security, who is responsible for actually implementing this program, has called the requirements of this amendment a poison pill. Why in the world would we design a verification system, which I agree is the linchpin of comprehensive enforcement, that fails? Why would we design a system to fail in which the very person who is responsible for enforcing it calls it a poison pill? The administration does not support this amendment. I suggest the underlying bill is a better bill with which to go to conference and work out our differences.

Mr. CORNYN. It would be based on the fact of alleged extreme hardship through a spouse, parent, or child of such alien who is a citizen. The fact is, a total of 6 million illegal aliens in the United States currently, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, have an American citizen child or spouse. It would also, as I read this, purport to waive removal for aggravated felons and would result in a green card for this class of individuals, irrespective of payment of taxes, any requirement they learn English, or paying a fine--which we have been told are the essential ingredients of earned legalization. So this is really a backdoor way of undermining the compromise we have been told is very delicate and fragile and should not be messed with. So I would think those Senators who believe that is actually true would vote against the Durbin amendment because it does seek to undermine that compromise.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would just say that the way I read this amendment--and I have only seen it in the last few minutes--it would result in a waiver for approximately 6 million people illegally here in the United States, as we speak.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the amendment. I guess if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I appreciate the Senator from Illinois suggesting that this follows the course set by the earlier amendment that had to do, as it turns out, with an entirely different class of individuals than the ones this amendment addresses. So I do not believe it is a similar sort of amendment. For this reason, this morning, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject the Feinstein amendment, which basically would have undone this delicate compromise, this fragile compromise we have been told has to be maintained at all costs. That amendment would have simply opened the door to amnesty for 12 million people who are here and not require anyone--no matter how short a time they have been here--to do very much of anything distinguishable, at least from the 1986 amnesty. The difference between what the Senate voted for earlier, which the Senator from Illinois references, is that those individuals had already had their day in court and been ordered deported but had simply gone underground. We recognized an extreme hardship exception there in an effort to try to work across the aisle with the Senator from Massachusetts and others, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. Those individuals, by the way, still had to meet the other criteria under the bill, the so-called 2-year and 5-year standards. The problem I have with this amendment is it has absolutely no standards to guide the discretion. As it says in the amendment, the ``sole and unreviewable'' discretion of the Attorney General and the ``sole and unreviewable'' discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. So we are left to wonder what standards would be actually applied by either the Attorney General or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Also, I believe, if taken at face value, this amendment would result in the waiver of grounds for inadmissibility for some 6 million individuals--roughly half of those who are currently in the United States--because, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, approximately 6 million people are currently in the country illegally who have an American citizen child or American citizen spouse. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment, although I do think this is one of those areas where the conference committee--after the Senate passes its version of the bill and the House is working with us to try to come up with a final form--certainly can build on and try to work on to put some meat on the bone that is left undone by this amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment 4106 by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. The amendment enhances enforcement of labor protections for United States workers and guest workers, it is argued, by increasing penalties in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, increase civil and criminal penalties in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, strengthens enforcement of violations for unfair labor practices, and designates how fees collected under the H-2C program should be allocated, including 25 percent to the labor law enforcement fund, and it would, arguably, provide protections for whistleblowers. The main problem I have with the amendment is it is beyond the scope of this bill and beyond the language included in the underlying compromise which we have been told time and time again is fragile or delicate, as those who have supported that compromise have sought to defeat amendments such as this argue to change it. This is obviously an amendment designed to increase the role of government, a role that is not called for. The problem is, the irony is, we may end up providing more protections for foreign workers than are provided for American citizens who currently work and reside legally in the United States. We ought to be cautious about doing that. Certainly we all agree--not all of us, but I agree--we need to provide some means for a guest worker or temporary worker program, and that those foreign workers who are authorized to work legally in the United States for a period of time should be given the protection of the laws that generally apply to workers who already work legally in the United States. But to increase penalties and so-called labor protections to a degree that exceeds that provided to American workers, to me, seems uncalled for. I urge my colleagues to vote against amendment 4106. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. My hope is that we would all work together in good faith to make that happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to Senator Grassley for his good work in this area. I do agree with him that we need to make sure, if there is a false positive--in other words, if someone should not be excluded from employment but the system says they should be and they are--that they ought to have some recourse. My hope is that we would create a way for that record, if it is erroneous, to be corrected without everybody hiring a lawyer and going to their respective corners and then meeting in a courtroom and litigating the issues that could perhaps be worked out without that kind of experience. I also want to make sure, as I know the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security told both Senator Grassley and myself, that we don't unintentionally create some disincentive for people to hold employers accountable for hiring people who aren't qualified to work. I think we can certainly work to that end to try to balance it so it is not a disincentive to work site verification and sanctions against employers who cheat, but at the same time it is also fair to the employees. The other problem is, this amendment and what we have done so far on this bill does not require the issuance of a secure Social Security card or employment authorization document. We had numerous witnesses testifying to the need for such a secure card. I believe employers would welcome the ease of being able to rely on a single document that could be literally swiped through a card reader, such as a debit card or a credit card at a convenience store. This bill, as amended by this amendment, would retain the complicated document scheme that has led to widespread document fraud and identity theft. And as I said, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has stated his objections to this amendment. I realize he is not a Senator; he doesn't get to vote. But I do think we ought to consult with and respect the views of those who are going to have the responsibility to actually make this system work. It concerns me that 20 years after the 1986 amnesty and the promise of work site enforcement that the agency responsible for enforcing those laws is telling Congress the new system would not work. My hope is that we would find a way to make it work. There may be some--I am not one of them--who don't want there to be enforcement, who don't want the system to work.

Mr. CORNYN. I understand the obligation of the Senator from Iowa, as chairman of the Finance Committee, to try to work on a bipartisan basis, and I know he is committed to do that, and that is what this amendment represents. But I want to make clear that in the absence of this amendment being adopted, we still have a title III provision that can go to conference committee and be the subject of further negotiations.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I guess the question I have for the Senator is, if this amendment fails, there is a provision in the underlying bill that would go to the conference committee; isn't that correct?

Mr. CORNYN. I will give him a minute of my time by unanimous consent, if that will help.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa, before he yields the floor, yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The June 18 article says: The most sweeping effort to halt illegal immigration in American history, the 1986 overhaul of immigration law, may have cut the flow of illegal aliens less than expected and may have actually encouraged unlawful entry in several ways. It quotes a professor Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California in San Diego: We found no evidence that the 1986 immigration law has shut off the flow of new undocumented migrants. The article, dated November 12, 1989, includes a quote from the junior Senator from New York, who was then serving in the House of Representatives. It says: Representative Charles E. Schumer, a Brooklyn Democrat who was an author of this Special Agricultural Worker provision, said that in retrospect the program seemed ``too open'' and susceptible of fraud. But he argued that the budget decisions had made the battle to combat fraud more difficult. In other words, alluding to the fact that notwithstanding the policy decisions made by Congress in 1986, that, in fact, it was the failure to actually finance and implement the policy for work site verification and employer sanctions that contributed to the ineffectiveness of the 1986 amnesty. I hope we will learn from the mistakes of the past and are not condemned to relive them with this bill. But I do agree with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Martinez and others, that while the Senator from California is absolutely correct in her diagnosis, this sets us up for a repeat of massive fraud. The prescription she recommends is not well advised. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, June 18, 1989] 1986 Amnesty Law Is Seen as Failing To Slow Alien Tide (By Roberto Suro) Houston, June 17.--The most sweeping effort to halt illegal immigration in American history, the 1986 overhaul of immigration law, may have cut the flow of illegal aliens less than expected and may have actually encouraged unlawful entry in several ways. Two years after it began to take effect, experts around the country are starting to draw conclusions about the law's effect. As thousands of people continue to enter the country illegally every day, the first arguments are being entered in a debate over whether the legislation has achieved its goals, and whether it ever will. Some in Congress seek more effective enforcement of the law; others want to focus on the poverty and turmoil in the third world that force people out of their homelands. Meanwhile, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has proclaimed the law a clear success, and the Bush Administration has yet to put its own stamp on immigration policy. ``We have found no evidence that the 1986 immigration law has shut off the flow of new undocumented migrants,'' said Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California at San Diego. a decade of Study The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, whose measures began to take effect in May 1987, was the first nationwide response to a wave of illegal immigration that began in the mid-1960's and created a resident population of illegal aliens variously estimated between 6 million and 12 million people. After a decade of study and argument in Washington, the 1986 law emerged as a mixture of humanitarian and restrictive measures. Unlike the two previous efforts to counter similar waves of illegal immigration in the 1930's and 1950's, there was no resort to mass deportations. The law offered legal status to illegal aliens who had lived in the United States continuously since Jan. 1, 1982, and it imposed penalties on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. It also allowed migrant workers to enter the United States during harvest season. ``The legislation bought time for everyone and made the problem more manageable for a while,'' said Leonel J. Castillo, who was Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization during the Carter Administration and is now president of Houston International University. ``It seems, however, that time has passed more quickly than expected, and so it is important to see where we stand, because I think we will be dealing with the issue again soon.'' torrents of people According to indicators used by the immigration service to estimate traffic across the southern border, this year there will be 1.7 million to 2.5 million crossings. The most recent statistics signal that the flow may have increased in April and May. Separate surveys of illegal aliens conducted by researchers based in Mexico, Texas and California all found that immigration by first-time travelers, as against those who had previously been to the United States, has been on the rise for at least a year. Experts also agree that the flow had dropped off through most of 1987. As a result, immigration experts say they have identified a ``wait and see'' response to the law among potential immigrants that may be producing a new wave of illegal immigration. Doris Meissner, an expert on immigration for the Carnegie Endowment, a Washington research organization, said, ``There is evidence that many potential immigrants waited for a while to see how the law worked and have since begun moving again. If so, we should see the flow across the border accelerating any day.'' a magnet of sorts The 1986 law allowed 3.1 million previously illegal aliens to obtain legal status here. Recent studies show that many thousands of people crossed the border surreptitiously to take advantage of the program, some of them with falsified documents and personal histories. The mass of newly legalized immigrants is also acting as a magnet for illegal aliens who want to come to the United States to join friends and relatives. A plan to strengthen the Border Patrol was never fully carried out, and experts reach widely differing verdicts on the effectiveness of the sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens. Representative Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who was instrumental in shaping the law's final compromises, said, ``The legislation has had some effect but not close to what it should have been.'' He complained that the Reagan Administration favored passage of the law but never gave the immigration service the resources to enforce it. ``So far, the law really has not been given a fair test,'' he said. The current debate over immigration policy is likely to affect not only future law but also foreign policy. After hearings last month on the law's effect, Representative Bruce A. Morrison, a Connecticut Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law, said, ``Looking at what's happened the past few years it is increasingly obvious that most of the reasons for illegal immigration are in the countries people are leaving, and that unless those conditions change we may be able to reduce the flow somewhat, but no enforcement scheme will stop the tide.'' a lonely assertion At those hearings Alan C. Nelson, Commissioner of the I.N.S., argued that a steady decline in the number of people apprehended trying to cross the border ``continues to demonstrate that the law is working and employer sanctions are having the intended effect of reducing illegal immigration.'' But the immigration service is now virtually alone in asserting that the sanctions have substantially cut the flow of illegal immigrants. Mr. Nelson has said repeatedly that the number of people apprehended on the border has dropped at a rate of 40 percent a year since the law went into effect. But many scholars dispute Mr. Nelson's statistics. Some researchers believe sanctions on employers have cut the flow, but not by 40 percent, and other experts argue the sanctions have had no effect at all. The effects of the law are illustrated in the experiences of two recent illegal immigrants. A 30-year-old woman from El Salvador said that in February 1988 she left home to live illegally in Texas in part because ``my cousin got papers under the amnesty, and so she was able to help me with money and a place to stay and generally in getting around.'' But as a result of the law, she said, ``there is no way to get a good job, because they always ask for your papers.'' The woman, a secretary in El Salvador, cleans houses in Houston, and although she would like better work here, she said she had no desire to return to the poverty and political violence of her homeland. ``Yes,'' she said, ``it is more difficult to get here and earn money now, but people still do it.'' Like other illegal aliens interviewed, she asked not to be identified. a family asunder In the case of another woman from El Salvador, the law had contradictory effects. She arrived here in 1981, qualifying for the amnesty, but her five children, now 10 to 18 years old, arrived too late to be legalized. ``It is a great worry for me,'' she said, ``because my two oldest have graduated from American high school. Their home is with me here, but they cannot get real jobs. What is their future?'' According to the immigration service, 3.5 million to 4 million illegal aliens live in the United States on an established basis, as against 6.5 million to 7 million before passage of the 1986 law. The drop is accounted for by the number of applicants for the amnesty programs. In effect, the amnesty divided illegal immigrants into those who were suddenly legalized and those who were not, but it did not physically separate these people. The immigration service expects that a vast majority of amnesty applicants will receive permanent status as legal residents. If they then become citizens after a five-year waiting period, they will be able to get legal status for their spouses and children. the men were first In the meantime, however, the law has created a new and growing category of illegal alien: the relatives of amnesty applicants. Noting that nearly 70 percent of the amnesty applicants are men, Nestor Rodriguez, a sociologist at the University of Houston, said: ``Usually, the men were the first to migrate, and so more of them qualified for the amnesty. Many woman and children who followed along later did not qualify, and certainly the men who were here alone and got papers are now bringing in their families illegally.'' The effect of the amnesty on illegal immigration goes beyond relatives, however. ``Illegal immigrants have a long history of following well- established routes,'' said Mr. Castillo, ``and the amnesty program gave those routes a little more solidity. Now, instead of relying on other illegals, a new arrival is likely to know people here who are legal and can offer help with all kinds of things. It's my guess that it will take a generation to break those ties.'' Mr. Cornelius of the University of California at San Diego conducted extensive surveys of three rural Mexican communities and has concluded, ``There has been no significant return flow of illegals who suddenly found themselves jobless in the United States.'' In the short term at least, he said, the 1986 law ``may have kept more Mexicans in the United States than it has kept out'' because it granted some kind of amnesty to about 3.1 million people. Although immigration experts agree that the prohibition on hiring undocumented workers has made it more difficult for illegal aliens to find work here, they differ widely on how much the sanctions on employers have reduced the flow across the border. arrest rates are debated Much of the debate over the rate of illegal immigration centers on statistics for the apprehension of aliens along the Southern border because the immigration service uses these figures to support its assertion that the sanctions have been effective. Almost all experts dismiss the immigration service view that proof of decreased flow lies in the 40 percent drop in apprehensions each year since 1986. The agency's critics say the number of Border Patrol agents assigned to watch the border also decreased markedly in that time, and so fewer apprehensions were inevitable. Also, it is argued that since 1986 the agents remaining on the border have spent more time tracking down drug smugglers, another reason why a decline in apprehension would not necessarily mean there was a drop in the flow of illegal aliens. Yet other researchers insist that a substantial part of the decline in apprehensions is explained by the fact that most of the 3.1 million amnesty applicants can move across the border as they have for years but do it legally. Chart of breakdown of legalization applicants and agricultural workers by gender, type of work, age, and state they applied in.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the pending amendment. It is interesting how causes line up. I find myself critical of the Hagel- Martinez compromise. I also find myself in agreement with the diagnosis of the Senator from California that the tiered method of trying to divide up the undocumented population will result in rampant fraud, just as it did in the post-1986 amnesty. But while I agree with her on the diagnosis, I don't agree with her prescription. The prescription, the alleged cure for the diagnosis, is that basically we throw up our hands and say that we cannot enforce the law. We can't secure our borders. We can't verify eligibility to work at the work site. We can't sanction employers who cheat. So we have to let anyone and everyone who has come to the United States, either in violation of the law or legally and overstayed, get basically the best gift that America can confer, and that is legal permanent residency and American citizenship and to jump in line ahead of those who have waited patiently outside the country and revisit the mistakes of 1986 when amnesty was tried. I have two articles from the New York Times, one dated June 18, 1989 and one dated November 12, 1989. I ask unanimous consent that these be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to join my voice with those of my colleagues in celebrating the life, and mourning the death, of one of the political giants of our time: Lloyd Bentsen fellow Texan, son, husband, father, friend, honored veteran, lawyer, county judge, Congressman, businessman, Senator, and at the peak of his career in public service, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. It is difficult to capture in one brief statement the weight and the impact of one man's life. But we can all be confident that the legacy left by Lloyd Bentsen is one of which his family, his State, and his country can be remarkably proud. Perhaps one important way to capture the meaning of his influence is to listen to those who have known or served with him or those who have had the honor of calling him a friend. Today, the chorus of their voices reminds us. Texas State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn said: ``Sen. Lloyd Bentsen was a true Texas icon and a friend. He put Texans above politics. He lifted all Texans.'' His former aide, and State Representative Richard Raymond said: ``He didn't pass the buck. That's one of the things that stuck with me.'' We should all be fortunate as to be remembered so fondly, and so well. It is clear that Lloyd Bentsen lived a life of purpose; he certainly wasted no time making his mark on our country. Born in Mission, TX, on February 11, 1921, Bentsen received his law degree from University of Texas Law School at Austin. He served as a pilot in the U.S. Army Air Forces from 1942 to 1945, and reportedly flew 35 B-24 missions during 18 months of heavy combat. He was put in charge of 600 men at the young age of 23, and was promoted to the rank of major. For his heroic service, Bentsen was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters. By the end of his military service, he had reached the rank of colonel. Bentsen returned from the war to serve as county judge in Hidalgo from 1946 to 1948; then was elected in 1948 to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served three terms. He then went on to pursue a career in business, which he did for 16 years in Houston before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1971. His career, of course, also notably includes his party's nomination for Vice President in 1988 a remarkable achievement, to be sure, as was his tenure as the 69th U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, where he served with distinction from January 1993 to December 1994. Mr. President, today our country both celebrates the life and mourns the death of this distinguished American, a great Texan, who dedicated his life to public service. He was a powerful voice for the people he served, and he will be deeply missed.