John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor to say a few words about Rosoboronexport, the Russian State arms dealer which has been supplying the Syrian Government with deadly weapons and thereby facilitating mass murder. Last November I sponsored an amendment to prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars in America to enter into contracts or agreements with Rosoboronexport. My amendment had strong bipartisan support, and it passed unanimously. Yet just yesterday, as President Obama met with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland, we learned the Pentagon signed a brandnew $572 million contract with Rosoboronexport to buy MI-17 helicopters for the Afghan Army. How did the Obama administration get around the prohibition in my amendment? They argued that the Rosoboronexport contract was in our national security interests. In other words, they want us to believe we are promoting U.S. security by doing business with a Russian arms dealer who is helping an anti-American, terror-sponsoring dictatorship commit mass atrocities. Unbelievable. Last year the Pentagon agreed to audit the contract with Rosoboronexport and make good-faith efforts to find other procurement sources for the Afghan military. Now they are refusing to complete that audit on the grounds that Rosoboronexport simply has refused to cooperate. Meanwhile, my office has learned that Army officials within the Non- Standard Rotary Wing Aviation Division, whose primary focus is the Mi- 17 program, are the subjects of an ongoing criminal investigation. This, obviously, raises troubling questions about whether the terms of the new Mi-17 procurement contract resulted from criminal misconduct. I want to take this opportunity to say once again that American taxpayers should not be indirectly subsidizing the murder of Syrian civilians, especially when there are perfectly good alternatives to dealing with Rosoboronexport. If the Pentagon continues this relationship, it will undermine American efforts to stand by the Syrian people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while the Senator from New York is still here, I would like to respond briefly and in a nonconfrontational way. But I would hope that on something as important as this, we are all operating from the same facts and not based on erroneous information or erroneous assumptions. First of all, my understanding is the Congressional Budget Office has not scored the underlying bill. As I said earlier, on page 872 of this bill, a comprehensive immigration reform trust fund is created, and $8.3 billion is transferred into that trust fund. My amendment uses the same money the underlying bill does to fund the requirements of my amendment. This notion that somehow having a biometric entry-exit system costs $25 billion is completely detached from any factual information I am aware of. My staff informs me, based on our best estimate, that a biometric entry-exit system at airports and at seaports would cost roughly $80 million a year. We are more than happy to share that information with our colleagues and have them take a look at it. Further, I know there has been an assumption that somehow there has been a figure of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents mandated in my amendment. That is an incorrect reading of it. The underlying bill calls for 3,500. We plus that up, we do, by not only Border Patrol but also customs and border agents to help facilitate the flow of legal commerce across Arizona, Texas borders, and elsewhere, which creates about 6 million jobs in America. So I do not mind us having a disagreement about policy. We are used to that. That is fine. I think some of these claims about extravagant expenses are not borne out by the facts. We would actually rely upon the same money that the trust fund created by the underlying bill does. I would yield to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, what is this--the third day this bill has been on the floor? There has been no scoring of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office, so no one knows what the official scorekeeper of the Congress has to say about this bill. But I would say that my amendment does not appropriate any additional money other than the money in the bill. Indeed, this leaves it up to the Department of Homeland Security within 120 days to render a plan, and then under the underlying bill, you can transition after 10 years from RPI status-- registered provisional immigrant--to legal permanent resident by substantial completion of a plan we do not know anything about. I mean, I do not think we are the experts in how exactly this should be done. I would hope that technology, which I think is fantastic--what answers that may provide to us 10 years hence in terms of how to accomplish the goals. But to suggest that somehow this legislation, which I have complimented on numerous occasions that it represents a substantial step in the right direction--to say that we cannot touch it, we cannot change it because eight Senators got together and decided what it should be, is preposterous. That is exactly what we are supposed to do. We ought to have a regular process to debate it and vote on it. But we should not be sort of suggesting ``been there, done that; you had your shot in committee'' and then not allow this process to move forward. I do not think we are all that far apart if we will stick to the facts and stick to the text of the bill. But we should not make things up, particularly on the order of $25 billion. I do not know where that came from. I know there was a suggestion that my amendment called for 10,000 new Border Patrol agents. That is not in the bill. So let's stick to the facts.

Mr. CORNYN. The underlying bill calls for 3,500. We ask for a plus-up of another 6,500.

Mr. CORNYN. It is $8.3 billion. They allocate some of that money for the purposes set out in the underlying bill. My amendment reallocates some of that same trust fund for other purposes, including additional personnel. There is no additional money. This is an appropriation made in the underlying bill. So I think it is a misunderstanding of what my amendment is.

Mr. CORNYN. If I can explain to the Senator from Arizona, this is the trust fund created by the underlying bill on page 872.

Mr. CORNYN. It comes in the same trust fund that is created on page 872 of the bill.

Mr. CORNYN. If I can respond to my friend, it comes from the same trust fund the underlying bill uses. It reallocates the money and does put some more money toward personnel. One of the problems is that there is so much that technology can do. I am exited about the prospects of technology when it comes to 100-percent situational awareness and allowing the Border Patrol to do a good job. But you have to have border patrol who show up and detain people when they come across illegally. My State has the longest border with Mexico--1,200 miles. Arizona has its own challenges. We have our challenges as well. So we do need more personnel. But the part that I would think is sort of baked into the underlying bill is that we also need to separate the legal commerce and tourism that is beneficial to both sides of the border. That is part of why the Customs agents who are included in my amendment are also there as well, the theory being--I think it is a good one--if you identify legitimate commerce and beneficial tourism and separate that from the bad guys, then law enforcement can focus more on the bad guys. That is what my amendment attempts to do. It is no additional money.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me start by complimenting the Senator from Nevada on his concerns with regard to staffing at our ports of entry, airports, and seaports. We have similar challenges, even at our land ports in Texas where legitimate commerce and tourism is taking place but which is being inhibited because of hardship or inconvenience on travelers because of a lack of staffing and infrastructure at those ports of entry. I have come to the floor to talk about an amendment I intend to offer, which I have discussed over the last couple of days, which uses many of the same standards the underlying Gang of 8 bill does. Let me explain. Of course, the Gang of 8 represents the Republicans and Democrats who came up with the original framework that then was adopted, by and large, by the Judiciary Committee, which is the base bill we are talking about today. But both the Gang of 8 bill and the results amendment which I will introduce call for the Department of Homeland Security to achieve 100 percent situational awareness of the southern border in 10 years. Both the Gang of 8 bill and the RESULTS amendment that I will offer call for the Department of Homeland Security to achieve full operational control of the border, which is defined as a 90-percent apprehension rate of illegal traffic. Both the Gang of 8 bill and the RESULTS amendment which I will offer call for a nationwide E-Verify system or a system of employer verification so we don't have our employers, small and large alike, having to be the police. We can give them a system that will be easily implemented--cards swiped and the like--which will allow them to determine and satisfy themselves that the worker who presents himself or herself for work is legally qualified to work in the United States. Both the Gang of 8 bill--the underlying bill--and the RESULTS amendment which I will offer call for a biometric entry-exit system at America's largest airports. In other words, rather than a poison pill-- if my amendment is a poison pill as some have suggested--then the Gang of 8 bill itself is a poison pill. But neither is true. The most important difference between my amendment and the Gang of 8 bill is that my amendment has real border security triggers in place while the Gang of 8 bill has no effective trigger that will guarantee implementation of border security standards that reach the gang's own standards of 100 percent situational awareness and a 90-percent apprehension rate. The Gang of 8 bill endorses many of the same border security standards that my amendment does, but it also authorizes a permanent legalization program for illegal immigrants regardless of whether the United States-Mexico border is ever secured. In other words, it is another promise Congress is making to the American people, but the American people have no way of knowing whether that promise will ever be kept. As further indication that truly what I am trying to do in my amendment is consistent with what the Gang of 8 has proposed, here is a quote from the majority whip, Senator Durbin from Illinois, in January of 2013. He said their bipartisan framework for comprehensive immigration reform--in that bill--a pathway to citizenship needs to be ``contingent upon securing the border.'' But yesterday, as reported in the National Journal on June 11, Senator Durbin said the gang has ``de-linked the pathway to citizenship and border enforcement.'' What my amendment does is restore this contingency which, if the gang's own standards are met--and I believe they will be--will allow people to transition from RPI status--registered provisional immigrant status--to legal permanent residency if they comply with the other requirements of the law. My amendment would delay permanent legal status until after we have that 100-percent situational awareness along the border and full operational control and nationwide E-Verify and a national biometric entry-exit system at all airports and seaports where Customs and Border Protection are currently deployed. Some have said my amendment and the standards in my amendment are unattainable or some say it is just too expensive. Let me answer both of those criticisms. If the standards the Gang of 8 has set itself for situational awareness and operational security are unattainable, then why did they embrace those standards in their own bill? Again, the only difference between my amendment and their initial proposal is that my amendment creates a trigger or a contingency requiring that standard to be met before immigrants who qualify for registered provisional immigrant status can transition into a legal permanent residency status. It has also been claimed by some of our colleagues, who interestingly were speaking without having actually seen language in the bill, that somehow the cost of my amendment is just too high. The fact is this bill appropriates $8.3 billion to pay into a trust fund that is created by the underlying legislation. On page 872 of the bill, it is called the comprehensive immigration reform trust fund. The initial funding is $8.3 billion. If my colleagues will simply read the legislation in my proposal, my amendment, the funding for my amendment comes from that same trust fund and does not appropriate any other additional funds. So I am satisfied by merely reallocating those funds in a way that I believe will help the Department of Homeland Security, help Congress, help the U.S. Government make sure we keep our promises to the American people. Well, you do not need to take my word for it. The Washington Post recently asked a number of immigration experts whether the goals set out in the Gang of 8 bill and in my amendment are, in fact, attainable. One of them, Asa Hutchinson--a name that is familiar to many of us because he has served as a Member of Congress, a member of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and as Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security at the Department of Homeland Security--told the Washington Post that the border security requirements in my amendment are both ``reasonable and attainable.'' In fact, Hutchinson said my amendment ``only requires security measures that are attainable in the near future.'' Another expert, Cato Institute scholar Alex Nowrasteh, who is a strong supporter of the underlying Gang of 8 bill, said my amendment is ``very much in the vein of the rest of the bill.'' He also affirmed that it would be, indeed, possible for the Federal Government to attain that 90 percent apprehension rate along the southern border. As for the biometric entry-exit system and the E-Verify requirements, if a nationwide biometric entry-exit system at our airports and seaports is unrealistic, then somebody should have told President Clinton in 1996 when he signed such a requirement into law. That is really the problem that my amendment is designed to solve. It has been the law of the land that Congress and the Federal Government implement a biometric entry-exit system for people entering our country and leaving our country since 1996, but do you know what. It has never been done. After the tragedy of 9/11 where 3,000 Americans lost their lives on that terrible day, the 9/11 Commission itself undertook a comprehensive study of how to stop such a terrible tragedy from occurring again. What they recommended, again, is a biometric entry-exit system. But while the biometric entry system is in place--it is just fingerprints on a fingerprint reader; pretty quick, easy technology, relatively cheap-- there has been no implementation at the airports and seaports of an exit system, which would tell us when people have entered legally but then have illegally overstayed their visa, which is 40 percent of illegal immigration. I would just close on this: On the E-Verify component--this, of course, is the employment verification system--if that is unrealistic, than somebody should have told our friends on the Gang of 8 because the E-Verify language in their bill is identical with my amendment. But here is the bottom line and the reality: Without a border security trigger, immigration reform will be dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. My amendment provides such a trigger. The Gang of 8 bill does not. That does not mean my amendment is a full- scale alternative to the Gang of 8 bill. But it does mean my amendment is essential to moving this legislation forward and to getting an outcome that ultimately will end up on the President's desk. I believe we should try to do our best to improve this underlying bill. My amendment is in that spirit because I do believe that the status quo is simply unacceptable, as I believe almost virtually all of our colleagues do. If we do not guarantee results on border security, particularly at a time when skepticism about Washington is at an all- time high, we guarantee the failure of bipartisan immigration reform, and that would be a tragedy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this afternoon we will have an important vote, some might say even historic vote, on the motion to proceed to the immigration reform bill. I was here in 2007, the last time that subject was on the floor of the Senate. It proved to be a divisive and tough issue that we could not get through. But I think if there is one thing that I sense, in terms of my constituents in Texas and sort of the impression I get generally speaking, it is that the American people believe that the status quo on immigration is unacceptable. Some of our colleagues have actually called the status quo de facto amnesty because essentially there is lawlessness in our broken immigration system. What we need to do is restore law and order and predictability and make sure our immigration system works in the best interests of the United States. That is true in a number of ways that are included in the underlying bill as it was voted out of the Judiciary Committee. So I will vote yes on the motion to proceed because I think it is important we take up this debate. The majority leader has indicated we are going to be debating this and offering amendments over the next 3 weeks. I think that is a good period of time for the American people to understand what is in the bill and to listen to pro and con debates and to make up their mind how they want their elected representatives to proceed. Yesterday I talked a little bit about an amendment I will offer to the underlying bill which would ensure that the Federal Government finally makes good on its promise--its perennial promise, but it is an unkept promise--to secure America's borders. This will not be any surprise to the Presiding Officer or my colleagues that coming from a State such as Texas, with a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico, this is a subject near and dear to my heart and that of my constituents. It is something we need to get right. The Democratic majority leader, in an interview with the press, called my amendment a poison pill. But I thought that was unusual and even curious because we had not shared the language of the amendment with him or anyone else at the time he gave it that characterization. But I believe the opposite is, in fact, true. If we do not guarantee results on border security, if we do not guarantee to the American people that we actually are going to get serious about stopping the flow of people illegally crossing our southwestern border or the northern border, for that matter, I think we guarantee the failure of bipartisan immigration reform. That is the real poison pill, failing to solve the problem and guarantee the results that the American people deserve and I think demand when it comes to dealing with our broken immigration system. If, in fact, by defeating sensible border security measures which guarantee implementation of border security, if by denying that, bipartisan immigration fails. Then the opponents of these sensible border security measures will have no one to blame but themselves, and that will prove to be the true poison pill. For more than 25 years the American people have been told by Washington that it is actually serious about securing our borders. Of course, this became more urgent after 9/11 when we finally realized that although we were removed from places such as the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, we were not insulated by virtue of our proximity or a lack of proximity to these places. So we learned we are not safe in America just by ourselves; that we are vulnerable to attacks. So this has given greater urgency to the importance of securing our borders and making sure we have a lawful immigration system that actually will work in the interests of the American people. We have also heard since 1986, when Ronald Reagan signed the first amnesty for 3 million people, it was premised on a promise of enforcement, and this would never ever happen again. The American people justifiably feel that the rug was pulled out from under them on that one when Congress and others undermined the enforcement measures that would made sure any future amnesties would no longer be required. It is understandable and I believe justified for the American people to be skeptical about Congress when it makes promises without any means to implement guaranteed results. Back in 1996, Congress and President Clinton authorized a nationwide biometric entry-exit system to reduce visa overstays. Why is this important? Forty percent of illegal immigration occurs when people enter the country legally as tourists, students or otherwise, and they simply overstay their visa because we have not yet, in the 17 years since President Clinton and Congress authorized, indeed demanded an entry-exit system--it still has not been implemented. In other words, the Federal Government has always said the right things when it comes to reassuring the American people, but it has never been able to translate those promises into results that are actually implemented. No wonder the American people are profoundly skeptical. Do not take my word for it. As of 2011, the Department of Homeland Security had achieved operational control of less than 45 percent of the United States-Mexico border. That is according to a GAO report; 45 percent of the southwestern border with Mexico is operationally secure, in the opinion of the GAO. More recently, radar surveillance by a new technology called VADAR was reported in the Los Angeles Times to have been successful in showing situational awareness along the border where it was tested but that, in fact, the Border Patrol detained less than half of the people crossing the border. That seems to be consistent with this idea of 45 percent operational control, where less than half of the people crossing were actually detained. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report showed similar security results--or failures I should say. Members of the Gang of 8, who I think have done the country a public service by bringing this matter to us, believe our goal should be 100 percent situational awareness of the southern border and a 90-percent apprehension rate of illegal border crossers. This may surprise my colleagues, but I actually agree with those metrics and those standards: 100 percent situational awareness, 90 percent apprehension rate. Members of the Gang of 8 who brought us this legislation also believe we should implement a national E-Verify system so employers do not have to play police, and they can get a card they can swipe through a reader which will verify that a person who applies to work at their workplace is legally qualified to work in the United States. I think absolutely that is good requirement. I agree with the Gang of 8's proposal. So I wonder why it is, why can they not take yes for an answer? If we agree on the standards they set, why can we not agree on sensible measures that will guarantee the implementation and the success of accomplishing the very goals they themselves have set? The difference is simply that my amendment would require national E- Verify and a 90-percent apprehension rate and full situational awareness along the border, a biometric entry-exit system before immigrants transition from the registered provisional immigrant status--we will hear a lot about RPI--to legal permanent residency. This is the leverage Congress and the American people have that will demand implementation of these security measures at the border and elsewhere. Meanwhile, while my results amendment would guarantee implementation of these provisions that have been long promised but never delivered by Congress, the Gang of 8 bill would authorize permanent legalization regardless of whether our borders are ultimately secured, according to their own standards. In fact, their bill requires only substantial completion of a plan whose contents we haven't even seen yet. This is something that is supposed to be proposed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, but we don't know what that plan is going to be. There is no lever. There is no means of forcing the Department to actually implement it and to achieve the goal the Gang of 8 themselves have set. My amendment contains a real border security trigger, while the Gang of 8 bill promises success but has absolutely no means to compel it. My amendment demands results, while the Gang of 8 bill is satisfied with just more promises, promises that historically have never been kept. I want to reiterate: We agree on a number of things. We agree on the objectives for border security. We agree on the importance of worksite verification of the legal status of people who apply to work. That is an important part of immigration reform. We agree on 100-percent situational awareness for our southwestern border, and we agree that the Department of Homeland Security should apprehend at least 90 percent of the people attempting to illegally cross the border. We agree on all of these realistic goals. The difference, once again, is that my amendment guarantees results, while the Gang of 8 proposal does not. I will ask my colleagues who have done, as I said earlier, good work bringing this proposal to the floor why is it if we agree on the goals that you would disagree on the means to enforce those goals? It makes no sense to me. We don't disagree about as much as I think some people might suggest. Another reason why I think this is not a poison pill is this is doable. The Gang of 8 said it is doable. I agree it is doable, but we need the leverage to compel the bureaucracy, Congress and everybody else, to actually make sure the American people aren't fooled again and the results that are part of the basic bargain contained in this bill are actually delivered. Let me note a couple of other issues that I think need to be fixed in the underlying bill. Where the Gang of 8 would actually make it harder to prevent visa overstays by changing existing law, laws that have been on the books since 1986, my amendment has a border security trigger that will require a fully operational biometric entry-exit program at all seaports and airports. Where the Gang of 8 bill would allow some criminals with violent histories to attain immediate legal status, my amendment would prohibit such criminals from gaining the benefits of RPI status or earn citizenship. Why should we reward people who demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to comply with our criminal laws? Why should we reward them with a pathway or a possibility of earning American citizenship? These people ought to be disqualified. The hard-working otherwise honest people who want to come here and seek a better life should be granted the benefits of this bill while excluding violent criminals. Where the Gang of 8 bill would prevent law enforcement from sharing information, my amendment would give law enforcement access to critical intelligence about threats to national security and public safety. One of the great failures of the 1986 immigration bill was that law enforcement was banned from gaining access to information in the applications of people who applied for amnesty that was clearly fraudulent, that would have reflected organized criminal activity and that would have rooted it out. Unfortunately, this current bill, underlying bill, contains the same prohibitions against information sharing that were contained in the 1986 bill, which unfortunately resulted in massive fraud and criminality. We need to stop that and learn from the mistakes of the 1986 bill and not repeat that again. Adopting my amendment would address that. Finally, where the Gang of 8 would do absolutely nothing to bolster infrastructure and personnel at land ports of entry along the southern border, my amendment would make sure resources are available to significantly reduce wait times, improve the infrastructure, and increase the personnel at our land ports of entry. This is important because this personnel and this infrastructure serve the dual purpose. No. 1, it makes sure legitimate trade in commerce crosses our borders. Why is that important? Six million jobs in America depend on lawful cross-border trade. These people are dual use. What I mean by that is they are also available to make sure illegal crossing doesn't occur and that drug dealers can't move bulk drugs and other contraband across, and that human traffickers are stopped trying to exploit our land ports of entry. One of the underlying premises of this approach is we need to separate the legal and the beneficial from the illegal and the harmful. When we do that, we can let our law enforcement personnel focus on the illegal and the harmful, while allowing those who are complying with our laws and are engaging in beneficial commerce with America. This creates jobs here in America and greater prosperity, and law enforcement won't have to spend or waste its time focusing on them so much. I don't know how any objective observer could look at my amendment and call it a poison pill. I think it is a mistake, again, because at the time the majority leader called it that, we hadn't even released the legislative language. I hope he and others will look at it carefully and work with us, because I think there is actually a path forward to bipartisan immigration reform that will secure our borders, eliminate the criminality in our system, and provide a legal means for America to be true to its values. It will look to its own economic self-interest in providing a pathway for legal immigration from the best and brightest, whom we ought to welcome with open arms. I don't know how any objective observer could look at my amendment and call it a poison pill, especially because it embraces so many of the metrics included in the underlying Gang of 8 bill. All my amendment does is to guarantee results, rather than be satisfied with more promises that will never be kept. This is the bottom line. Americans are tired of hearing endless border security promises without seeing any realistic mechanism for guaranteeing results. My amendment would guarantee such a mechanism, and it would guarantee the results Washington has long promised but never delivered. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have been working on immigration reform ever since I came to the Senate about 10 years ago. I have sponsored legislation--most notably with the former Senator Jon Kyl in 2005-- called the Comprehensive Border Security and Immigration Reform Act. The legislation I have worked on since I have been in the Senate has dealt with virtually every aspect of the issues that immigration touches on--from high-skilled visas and guest worker programs to border security to enhancement of our ports of entry. The staffing at those ports of entry is important. It makes it possible for legitimate commerce and trade to go back and forth, most notably, with Mexico which shares 1,200 miles of common border with my State of Texas. As a result of that bilateral exchange, 6 million jobs are created in the United States alone. I believe I have been involved in some of the toughest parts of the immigration debate, and as I have joked to my staff and family, I have the scars to prove it. The truth is this is a new topic in many ways to so many Members of the Senate because 43 Senators have come to this Chamber since the last time we debated this topic in 2007. While the Senate Judiciary Committee has had the opportunity to vote on this important legislation, the rest of the body has not had a chance to weigh in and offer their contributions, hopefully, with an eye toward improving the bill and making it something of which we can be proud. When I first read the bill produced by the so-called Gang of 8, I saw many improvements in our current broken immigration system. For example, the bill, as written by the Gang of 8 and now passed out of the Judiciary Committee, allowed more STEM graduates; that is, graduates from our colleges and universities with math, science, and engineering degrees, to gain admission to our country as legal permanent residents and eventually citizens. Further, I think the bill makes some improvements in terms of family unification. It brings families together who are split because of archaic and unworkable provisions in our immigration law. I think the bill also helps take an important step toward regaining the public's confidence. The Federal Government is actually up to writing laws that can be enforced and will actually work as advertised. That is where the E- Verify provisions are so important. It makes sure employers only hire people who are legally eligible to work in this country. In that same vein, this bill as originally written would provide some enhanced penalties to employers who would game the system by evading legal workers and hiring people who cannot legally work in the United States. All of these provisions enjoy broad bipartisan support. Yet, coming from a border State, as I said--one that shares 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, through which the overwhelming majority of illegal immigration across our borders occurs--I believe there are dramatic improvements needed in this bill when it comes to securing America's borders and promoting public safety, and those cannot be disentangled from one another. We know that the same border that allows somebody who wants to come into this country to work and have a better life--certainly something we can all understand and empathize with--also permits drug cartels and human traffickers to penetrate our borders and apply their dangerous trade. We have also learned over time that our 2,000-mile southern border is very diverse. In other words, if a person is from California and their view is that the border of the San Diego area where they have double- fencing and mounted patrols, in essence, by the Border Patrol--that may well work to control the border in San Diego, but it may not work in Arizona or in Texas. As a matter of fact, we have seen dramatic improvements in Arizona. Two of the Members of the Gang of 8, Senator McCain and Senator Flake, have been very diligent in working on those issues in their State. However, I must tell my colleagues that, coming from the State of Texas, where we have the longest extension of uncontrolled border in the country, there is a lot of work that needs to be done because of this diversity, and that is the spirit in which I intend to offer amendments to help improve border security and public safety. Now, the bill grants permanent legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants as currently written without any guarantee of securing the border. How would that possibly be a good idea? In other words, there are many Americans who, in their humanity and out of simple human compassion, understand that the 12 million or 11 million people who are currently undocumented or who are in illegal status in this country--they understand we are not going to do a massive deportation of those 12 million people. It is just not going to happen. What they would be willing to do is to accept a legal status for those individuals if they can be assured the immigration bill that is actually passed will work as advertised. Those eligible for immediate legalization under the current bill would include those already deported immigrants as well as people who have been convicted of serious crimes such as domestic violence, child abuse, and drunk driving. How could that possibly be a good idea? We need to fix those provisions and fix the bill in the process. Meanwhile, unfortunately, this bill also weakens current law with regard to people entering the country legally but failing to leave when their visa expires. This is the so-called biometric entry-exit system which has been the law of the land since 1996. When we wonder why people are skeptical about the Federal Government's commitment to actually enforce the law as written, exhibit A is this 1996 requirement for a biometric entry-exit system that has never been implemented. Visa overstays account for 40 percent of illegal immigration. Don't we want to fix that provision of the bill? Yes, we should, and, yes, we will if my amendment is adopted. This bill also hides from law enforcement officials certain critical information necessary to detect fraud. One of the big problems with the 1986 amnesty that Ronald Reagan signed based on the premise that there would be enforcement and no need to ever provide another amnesty again, that this would actually be enforced, was that there was so much fraud associated with it because of the confidentiality requirements of the law. Those same mistakes have been repeated in the underlying bill, and that needs to be fixed. My amendment--something we call the RESULTS amendment because we need not just new promises, we need actual results--fixes these problems. First, it requires the Department of Homeland Security to gain complete situational awareness and full operational control of the Southwestern border, with ``operational control'' defined as at least a 90-percent apprehension rate of illegal border crossers. Ultimately, the goal needs to be not just focused on how many we apprehend but on deterrence. Law enforcement generally operates when people are deterred from violating the law because they fear being captured and the punishment that goes along with it. So that ultimately needs to be our goal, but it will never happen unless we capture at least 90 percent of the people who come across, thus sending the message that the American border is now secure. My amendment would also require the use of a biometric exit system at all airports and seaports where Customs and Border Protection is currently deployed, and it requires national implementation of E- Verify. Again, that system will allow employers not to be the police but to have a simple and easy way to verify that the individuals who present themselves for employment at their place of business are legally qualified to work in the United States. The biggest difference between my amendment and the underlying bill is that my amendment guarantees results, while the Gang of 8 proposal merely promises results. I have to tell my colleagues that perhaps with all of the confluence of scandals occurring in Washington, DC, including the IRS debacle and the Health and Human Services Secretary shaking down and raising money from the very people she regulates, there is a lot of what I would call a confidence deficit in Washington, DC--particularly given Washington's abysmal record in enforcing our immigration laws. But it is important to distinguish between promises and results. Remember, the Federal Government has promised to secure our border for the last quarter century, and the trail of broken promises, as I said, goes back to 1986 when Congress passed an amnesty program while assuring voters they would see results on border security and enforcement. As everyone knows, we got the amnesty but not the enforcement in 1986, and the underlying bill suffers the same problems. At the very least, we should try to learn from history and not repeat it. Unfortunately, the underlying bill fails to acknowledge those lessons we should have learned about steps we need to take in order to guarantee results rather than make repetitive promises we ultimately don't keep. I understand why the American people don't trust Washington. I understand why they dismiss some border security promises as rhetoric. That is why my RESULTS amendment is so important and essential to accomplishing the goal of bipartisan immigration reform. As I said, right now Congress and Washington have a major credibility problem. No one believes we are actually serious about actually securing the borders and stopping the hemorrhaging of humanity across our southern border into the United States, including not just people who want to work but people who are up to no good--the human traffickers and the drug dealers. I am afraid the Gang of 8 bill in its current form would make this problem worse. So I believe the true poison pill would be the failure to take sensible measures by adopting amendments such as mine which are designed to actually solve the problem and guarantee results rather than ignore this important credibility gap Washington has. As I said, we do not need promises, we need results, and that is what my amendment would provide. Instead of enacting so-called triggers that are just really talking points disguised as policy, it is time for us to adopt real triggers that condition the pathway to citizenship on Washington and the bureaucracy and Congress hand-in-hand working to make sure the law is enforced as written. The majority leader reportedly, according to Politico, has somehow called my amendment a poison pill. We have heard that kind of language before. This is an effort designed to discourage those who would actually create a workable, results-driven immigration reform system from even offering their ideas. The irony is the majority leader hasn't even read my amendment because it hasn't been reduced to legislative language yet. He has prematurely called it a poison pill. In fact, the true poison pill would be failure to adopt such a sensible approach that would guarantee results so that when it goes to the House, we can see we are actually serious about delivering an immigration reform bill that functions as advertised and not just another series of hollow promises. Strengthening border security and enhancing interior enforcement are not alternatives to fixing our broken immigration system; they are complements to the kinds of sensible reforms Members of both parties have endorsed. Indeed, the provisions of my amendment actually build on the framework created by the bipartisan Gang of 8 proposal. The difference is, again, that we don't just make the promises, we don't just require the issuance of a plan, we actually require metrics to measure success, and we hold the feet of Congress and the bureaucracy to the fire to make sure those metrics and those goals are actually achieved. Even as we debate the most controversial issues, we should be doing everything possible to promote the type of legal immigration that benefits our society and our economy as well. It is with that spirit in mind that I will be introducing at a later time my RESULTS amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to take a look at it and join me in strengthening this underlying bill, making it more likely, not less likely, that we will actually pass a bill that will be taken up by the House of Representatives and eventually be presented to the President for his signature. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the events of the last few weeks have thrown a spotlight on a culture in Washington which threatens the very fabric of what I just spoke about and that Senator Lautenberg fought for and contributed to, one that would hopefully instill confidence in the American people that what is happening here is in their best interest; that people realize we are the employees of the American people, here to serve their interests. That should be our primary focus. Unfortunately, we have learned a culture of intimidation has arisen in Washington, and, unfortunately, it has become all too pervasive and threatens to become a cancer that cannot only destroy the public confidence in their Federal Government but also destroy the nature of our democracy itself. We have learned that IRS agents--we don't know how many yet, but we do know that some--were deliberately targeting different political groups because of their political activities. Remember, this is activity protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. If it weren't for the political activity of the American people, we wouldn't have this great democracy which is the envy of the world. But we have learned the Internal Revenue Service was asking different groups inappropriate questions about their donors, their positions on various issues of the day, and the political affiliations of its officers and directors. We have learned these abuses went far beyond two rogue employees in the Cincinnati field office; that the IRS headquarters in Washington was involved as well. Of course, the initial story that this was confined to a couple of self-starters and free agents in Cincinnati was laughable. We all know enough about bureaucracies to know that no one, particularly at a lower level to midlevel, instigates any sort of initiative as bold and as toxic as this without some sort of approval from on high, whether it is implicit or explicit. We have now learned senior officials in the IRS knew about these abuses at least 2 years ago, yet failed to notify Congress or the public. We have learned that one conservative activist from Houston, TX, one of my constituents, Catherine Engelbrecht, was targeted by multiple Federal agencies, including the IRS, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and OSHA. We have also learned the Environmental Protection Agency is yet another agency that has discriminated against political organizations they do not happen to agree with. And we have learned the Obama administration, in the form of the Justice Department, has treated a reporter as if he were a criminal simply for doing his job. I have seen the explanation of the apologists at the Justice Department. They said just because they identified James Rosen as a potential criminal coconspirator, they never intended to prosecute him. This is part of an affidavit designed to get at certain records that Mr. Rosen and his family maintained, invading their privacy. It makes no sense they would claim in this affidavit, in order to get this search warrant, that he was a potential criminal coconspirator and at the same time they never intended to prosecute him. Those are simply incompatible and inconsistent statements. We have also learned the Department of Justice has conducted a disturbingly intrusive and broad investigation into the phone records of journalists who worked for the Associated Press. At the Department of Health and Human Services we have learned that Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has literally been raising money from private companies she is responsible for regulating in order to fund ObamaCare. That is a conflict of interest, and that is the most charitable thing one can say about it. We have further learned this culture of intimidation has also given way to a culture of coverups and misinformation. We have learned more about the Obama administration's dishonest portrayal of the September 2012 terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. We have learned the Obama State Department punished U.S. diplomats, whistleblowers, for cooperating with congressional investigators. Sadly, these abuses are part of a larger pattern that goes back several years. For example, in 2010, when we were considering the matter of ObamaCare, various health insurance companies began alerting their customers about what they believed the impact of ObamaCare would be on them, and that specifically, if passed, it would force them to raise premiums on their own customers. Secretary Sebelius, at the time, threatened to punish these companies and bar them from participating in the ObamaCare exchanges if they followed through in communicating with their own customers about what the impact of this legislation would be on them. By the way, the same IRS official who led the division to target political speech is now in charge of administering large portions of ObamaCare, which depends upon the Internal Revenue Service to implement so much of it. At a time when the Internal Revenue Service has lost credibility with the American people, it has no business administering a law that will affect one-sixth of our national economy. The same culture of intimidation we have seen at Health and Human Services and at the Internal Revenue Service has also been prevalent at the Justice Department. That should be the bastion of justice and equal treatment under the law, but, sadly, it is not. The case of Fox News reporter James Rosen is only the latest example. In recent days we have learned DOJ officials tracked Rosen's movements, got a search warrant to examine his private e-mails, and even obtained his parents' phone records. They treated him like a criminal, which is quite remarkable because, as I said, he was simply doing his job. As the Washington correspondent for the New Yorker magazine noted: It is unprecedented for the government, in an official court document, to accuse a reporter of breaking the law for conducting routine business of reporting on government secrets. I believe national security leaks should be investigated. But what about going after the leaker? We recognize when reporters are targeted, it becomes especially sensitive, given the role of reporting the news and the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution and the need of our society to maintain the kind of openness that only comes with a free and robust press. In addition to an overbearing surveillance of individual journalists, the Obama Justice Department also targeted whistleblowers in the notorious Fast and Furious investigation. This is where guns were purchased in bulk in the United States and allowed to walk into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. One Department of Justice official, a U.S. attorney in Arizona, tried to smear a whistleblower by leaking a private document. The Department of Justice inspector general called this behavior ``inappropriate for a department employee and wholly unbefitting a United States attorney.'' Meanwhile, a separate Justice Department official was forced to resign her position when she was caught collaborating with leftwing bloggers to slander both whistleblowers and journalists. As you can see, my conclusion there has been created a culture of intimidation is not the result of just one incident but a number of incidents and data points that, when connected, I think clearly paint that very sad and troubling picture. This culture of intimidation has become entrenched at Federal agencies and departments all across the Obama administration. This culture of intimidation was troubling before the IRS scandal broke, and it is even more troubling given all we have learned in the past few weeks. So I hope Congress will do its job on a bipartisan basis--as the Finance Committee, under the leadership of Senators Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch, have already done on the IRS matter--to investigate this in a bipartisan way to get to the bottom of this matter, recognizing this kind of abuse of power on the part of the Internal Revenue Service can be turned not just against conservative political speech but also against people on the political left or anybody in between. This should not and cannot be tolerated. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join others of our colleagues in mourning the passing of our friend and former colleague Senator Frank Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg joined this body in 2003 for the second time. I was immensely struck by his tenacious work ethic and his deep- seated devotion to the people of his State, the State of New Jersey. These are attributes that would serve all of us well and served him well and are something to which we can all and should all aspire. Senator Lautenberg's legacy will be forever woven in the fabric of America's history. His work on the new GI bill of rights has helped ensure that thousands of America's fighting men and women receive the support they need when they come home and the opportunity to become part of the next ``greatest generation.'' With his passing, the Senate has lost its final member of what we all know or have come to call, as Tom Brokaw did, the ``greatest generation,'' the World War II generation, the generation my dad served in as part of the Army Air Corps in flying B-17s in World War II, and my father-in-law, who landed on Utah Beach on the second day of the Normandy invasion. These were great Americans, and it is their sacrifice and the contribution they have made to our way of life that have made it possible for America to remain the envy of the world. We are also reminded that our time in this Chamber is fleeting, and we should be humbled by that reminder. There have been 43 new Senators who have come to the Senate since 2007 alone. The reason I counted is because that was the last time we took up immigration reform--a subject we are going to turn to perhaps next week. Forty-three new Senators since 2007. Perhaps we will have 44 by the time we turn to that topic next week. We are reminded it is our duty as Americans to ensure this Chamber will host future generations of great Americans as well. As Senator Lautenberg goes to his rest, my prayer is that his loved ones can take solace in the fact that he played such an important part in the great American story with honor and integrity.