John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to respond to some remarks made by the distinguished majority leader earlier today. The majority leader listed accomplishments he believes the new majority has accomplished during the 6 months that new majority has been in power. He talked about homeland security funding, the SCHIP program, appropriations, the budget, Iraq, Attorney General Gonzales, and the Energy bill. One of the things I admire about the majority leader is that he is a very good advocate. He knows how to put a good face on the facts. But I wish to suggest to my colleagues here that in reality, the current state of affairs in the Senate is not nearly as rosy as the majority leader would have us believe. We spent nearly 2 weeks trying to craft an energy bill that would relieve some of the pressure on American consumers when they fill up their tanks or go to pay their electric bills. Unfortunately, the bill that was offered will not provide a single watt of new energy or a single drop of new oil. Instead, we saw amendments that would have improved the bill in this area defeated time and time again. Moreover, it will actually raise prices for consumers. This bill, in fact, that was passed last night is bad energy policy because it will raise energy prices for consumers. It will enact, if finally signed into law, price controls, returning us to the failed energy policies of the 1970s and the 1980s, which produced shortages, gas lines, and other severe economic dislocation. This energy bill passed by the Senate last night will increase costs for American energy companies. It will force them to do more of their investment outside of the continental United States, and it will increase--not decrease but increase--our dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas, primarily from dangerous parts of the world and enemies of our country. It will enact unattainable Federal mandates. It will reduce the Nation's ability to compete in the global market against much larger state-owned energy companies for reserves around the globe. Finally, it will continue the prohibition on expanding the domestic production of oil and natural gas. Instead of trying to work through these problems in a bipartisan way to try to actually bring results and solutions that make sense, the majority leader chose instead to file cloture on the bill, which means, of course, to close off debate and to force a vote so we could speed through it without resolving the predicament Americans will continue to find themselves in, with high prices at the pump and when they pay their utility bills each month. Last night, I am sorry to report, this body approved this ineffective--and perhaps even harmful--legislation. Why, I might ask, were we so quick to pass this bill before we could turn it into something that might actually help the American consumer? Well, as it turns out, the reason we were in such a big hurry to close off debate and to stop our work before we could actually provide some relief to the American consumer when they pay their utility bills or when they fill up their gas tanks is because we have to turn to a bill that big labor regards as their single most important legislative agenda, and that is to eliminate the right of prospective union members to the secret ballot. That is right. The bill we are moving to next because we didn't have enough time to finish the energy bill to actually provide some meaningful relief for American consumers is designed to help labor unions intimidate workers into the decision of whether to unionize. Our friends on the other side of the aisle are demanding that the U.S. Government strip workers of the right to a secret ballot when it comes to the decision of whether to join a labor union. As a matter of fact, they have deceptively named this bill the ``Employee Free Choice Act.'' This is anything but a matter of employee free choice because it would deny workers the freedom of choice, exposing them to intimidation and manipulation that comes from anything other than a secret ballot. This bill ought to be called the ``Employee NO Choice Act.'' It provides opportunities to bully workers into joining labor unions, stripping them of the valuable right to a secret ballot. Why in the world would we move from one of the most pressing problems confronting our country today--literally a national security problem relating to our dependence on foreign oil--and failing to address the most pressing concerns that most Americans feel each day because of high gas prices and high electricity prices? Well, apparently, the answer is to turn to a partisan matter such as avoiding the secret ballot for union members. Some of those who have given support to those across the aisle have attempted to provide the rationale. One explanation given last fall was that ``the Democrats are beholden to labor and must pass the Employee Free Choice Act.'' Unfortunately, this has the simple feel of political payback for efforts made by labor to provide Democrats control of Congress last November. I cannot see any other logical explanation for the timing and interruption of one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress will consider this year. In fact, just last week, the majority leader's spokesman explained that ``we need to make clear to the American people that we are following through on the promises we made in November.'' Madam President, I am not alone in my hesitation about this bill stripping American workers of a fundamental right. Just a few short years ago, Democratic Members of Congress, including the author of the House version of this bill, wrote to officials in Pueblo, Mexico, to urge use of secret ballot in union elections. In that letter, those Democrats set forth the reasons secret ballots are essential. They said: We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose. . . . We feel that the increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace. I agree with the letter, but I disagree with this bill, which would strip workers of this valuable and fundamental right. Why would our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to give big labor the power to intimidate, potentially, American workers? Why urge free choice and democracy in the international workplace, while offering no choice to American workers? I am afraid the answer is clear. Union memberships have declined. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership is down from 20 percent of the workforce in 1980 to just 12 percent now. Less than 8 percent of private sector workers belong to a union today. As a recent Washington Times editorial explains: Card-check unionization has quickly become the only way big labor seems to increase membership these days. Big labor helped elect Democrats in the 110th Congress. In fact, union PAC contributions to Federal candidates increased 11 percent from 2004 and are higher than any other industry grouping. The Center for Responsive Politics found recently that since 1989- 1990, labor unions have comprised 6 of the top 10 political donors to Federal candidates and political parties, ranging from the AFSCME, to Teamsters, to the Service Employees Union. This has all the earmarks of political payback, plain and simple. This should not be the reason we have taken up valuable time on the floor of the Senate--to deal with political payback. Now is not the time to repay political favors, when the Senate has a seemingly endless list of more pressing and urgent matters to solve. True free choice in any election only comes with the secret ballot. I think we all intuitively understand that. Union elections are no exception. American democracy must preserve an employee's right to a secret ballot when deciding union representation. We should not even be considering this bill, but if forced to, we should oppose it. I also want to point out on this front, in case you don't believe this matter is motivated by pure politics, that the majority leader scheduled a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the immigration bill immediately following the procedural vote on the secret ballot bill on Tuesday. So no matter what happens on the vote to proceed to the union payback bill, we will not actually be considering that legislation--even if we were to vote to go to it. How can this exercise be categorized as anything other than a waste of the Senate's time? I wish I could report that this is the first time our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who control the Senate calendar, have held votes that waste time and divert attention from issues that are much more important. As America struggles with record prices at the gas pump, and our broken immigration system is in desperate need of reform, the new leadership of this majority believes the Senate should spend more time and energy on a nonbinding and purely political resolution on the Attorney General. I think that is unfortunate. Unfortunately, it is also indicative of the priorities we have seen. Since taking control of the Congress 6 months ago, our colleagues have refused to address needed reforms of entitlement programs. The Children's Health Insurance Program, better known as SCHIP, that the majority leader said would greatly expand and provide benefits to individuals--unfortunately, we have not taken that matter up. In fact, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have transformed this program designed to help children in need of having health insurance to one that would cover adults and children who are part of families making double the income the program started with. Instead of children of modest economic means, it has been expanded now as a new Government entitlement, leading the way more and more to a single-payer, Government-run system out of Washington, DC. The majority leader also pointed out successes relating to the budget, while highlighting that the 109th Congress didn't even pass a budget. What the majority leader didn't say is, this budget contemplates the single largest tax increase in American history. If the majority leader believes passing a tax-and-spend budget that includes the largest tax increase in history, does nothing to control entitlement spending, and explodes the debt is an accomplishment, well, it may be an accomplishment for tax-and-spenders, but it certainly was not an accomplishment for the American people. This budget was not an accomplishment for middle-class families and American entrepreneurs who will get socked with the highest tax increase in our Nation's history. This budget was not an accomplishment for our children and grandchildren, who will have to deal with the consequences of this body's refusal to reform entitlement spending--a fiscal tsunami that we all know is coming. If we do nothing about entitlement spending, we soon will not have a dime to pay for anything else except four things: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and part of the interest on the debt. This budget was certainly not something to be proud of. It includes more money than what the President asked for and doesn't eliminate a single wasteful Government program. It adds to our Nation's debt, and it raises taxes on middle-class families. To date, this Congress, under the new majority, has failed to send any meaningful legislation to the President's desk for signature. Instead, the majority leader pulled the immigration bill from the floor, delayed consideration of an energy bill, ultimately passing a bill that will fix none of the current problems, and pursued political resolutions aimed at weakening the President, at the expense of strengthening our Nation. Only one of the ``six for '06'' initiatives that our Democrat colleagues heralded when they got elected to the majority have become law, due in part to their lack of bipartisanship and cooperation. Their agenda so far has included passing a budget with the largest tax increase in American history; increasing spending on wasteful programs; they have sought to micromanage the war rather than to give our commanders and soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on the ground the opportunity to actually succeed; they forced our troops to shoulder pork barrel projects and made them wait 117 days to get a bill to the President that he would sign--an emergency spending bill that would get necessary relief to our troops in a time of war; they sought to raise the minimum wage without protections for small businesses; they have hampered the 9/11 Commission recommendations with paybacks to unions; they forced taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research under circumstances that many Americans would find crosses a moral line, by taking life in order to conduct scientific research; they have undermined a successful Medicare prescription drug plan in favor of a Government-run health care plan, and opposed market-based solutions. My friends across the aisle have had a rough go of it during their first 6 months in the majority. They would have you believe, and the majority leader would have you believe, from his comments earlier today, that they have not been able to accomplish anything because of their narrow majority here. In truth, however, the blame lies with the incredibly partisan way in which the majority has conducted themselves. They have refused to cooperate with this side of the aisle to accomplish many good things for the American people, instead filing a record number of cloture motions and bringing this body to a halt--40 times so far this Congress, compared with 13 during the same period of time in the 109th Congress, 9 in the 108th, and only 2 in the 107th Congress. I am here to urge our colleagues in the majority to discard the approach they have attempted so far, which is to ram legislation through a closely divided body without compromise. This has not worked for them so far, and it will not work for them in the future. Even more important, it will not work to solve the problems of the American people. In order to do the job the American people sent us here to do, we have to work together. As my Democrat colleagues have pointed out many times in the past, we are not the House. We must continue to look at all issues that are vital to the American people. We must compromise on those issues in good faith to do our very best, and we must put an end to the time we are wasting on such divisive, partisan issues, such as frivolous votes of no confidence against the current administration and payback to big labor for November favors. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded,

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today along with the senior Senator from Vermont to introduce the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2007. This is another significant piece of legislation on which I proudly have teamed with Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Most recently, we have worked together on important reforms to the Freedom of Information Act, and also introduced comprehensive patent reform legislation. I am glad to continue our work by introducing this legislation which, though seemingly technical and minor, offers very important clarifications about the scope of protections available to boat designers. Boat designs, like any technical designs, are complex and are the result of a great deal of hard work and contribution of intellectual property. Accordingly, Congress enacted the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act in 1998 to provide necessary protections that were not present among copyright statutes prior to that time. The act has been instrumental for the continued development and protection of boat designs but unfortunately recently has encountered a few hurdles. A recent court decision raised questions about the scope of protections available to various boat designs. Justifiably or not, this interpretation under the VHDPA unfortunately has led many in the boat manufacturing industry to conclude that the act's provisions are not effective at protecting vessel designs. Intellectual property protection of those designs is critical to these manufacturers in order to encourage innovative design, and a clarification of the law is needed. The legislation we offer will clarify that the protections accorded to a vessel design can be used to separately protect a vessel's hull and/or deck as well as a plug or mold of either the hull or deck. The proposed amendments would make clear that it remains possible for boat designers to seek protection for both the hull and the deck, and plug or mold of both, of a single vessel, and many designers no doubt will continue to do so. However, these amendments are intended to clarify that protection under the VHDPA for these vessel elements may be analyzed separately. This bipartisan legislation provides the necessary assurance to boat manufacturers that the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act will remain a vital intellectual property protection statute. The bill offers very important clarifications about the scope of protections available to boat designs and will be welcome news to boat makers across the Nation and in Texas. The thousands of miles of coastline in Texas, and all the lakes and rivers in between, provide significant opportunities for recreational and commercial boating throughout the state. This legislation will ensure that there will be continued innovation in the design and manufacture of boats for many years to come.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today along with the senior Senator from Vermont to introduce the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2007. This is another significant piece of legislation on which I proudly have teamed with Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Most recently, we have worked together on important reforms to the Freedom of Information Act, and also introduced comprehensive patent reform legislation. I am glad to continue our work by introducing this legislation which, though seemingly technical and minor, offers very important clarifications about the scope of protections available to boat designers. Boat designs, like any technical designs, are complex and are the result of a great deal of hard work and contribution of intellectual property. Accordingly, Congress enacted the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act in 1998 to provide necessary protections that were not present among copyright statutes prior to that time. The act has been instrumental for the continued development and protection of boat designs but unfortunately recently has encountered a few hurdles. A recent court decision raised questions about the scope of protections available to various boat designs. Justifiably or not, this interpretation under the VHDPA unfortunately has led many in the boat manufacturing industry to conclude that the act's provisions are not effective at protecting vessel designs. Intellectual property protection of those designs is critical to these manufacturers in order to encourage innovative design, and a clarification of the law is needed. The legislation we offer will clarify that the protections accorded to a vessel design can be used to separately protect a vessel's hull and/or deck as well as a plug or mold of either the hull or deck. The proposed amendments would make clear that it remains possible for boat designers to seek protection for both the hull and the deck, and plug or mold of both, of a single vessel, and many designers no doubt will continue to do so. However, these amendments are intended to clarify that protection under the VHDPA for these vessel elements may be analyzed separately. This bipartisan legislation provides the necessary assurance to boat manufacturers that the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act will remain a vital intellectual property protection statute. The bill offers very important clarifications about the scope of protections available to boat designs and will be welcome news to boat makers across the Nation and in Texas. The thousands of miles of coastline in Texas, and all the lakes and rivers in between, provide significant opportunities for recreational and commercial boating throughout the state. This legislation will ensure that there will be continued innovation in the design and manufacture of boats for many years to come.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, a story in today's Los Angeles Times states that the approval rating of Congress is the lowest in a decade. The poll reported in today's Los Angeles Times says 27 percent of Americans approve of how Congress is doing its job, and most see business as usual. After Congress has diverted its attention from what I consider to be the most important domestic issue confronting the Nation today; that is, fixing our broken borders and actually enforcing our immigration laws, in order to have a vote of no confidence on the Attorney General in what is clearly a political exercise rather than anything that would produce a meaningful result, we now turn our attention to an important issue and one I hope Congress will embrace in order to address energy concerns in this country. Of course, we all know--all we have to do is to drive up to fill up our gas tank--the price of gasoline has gone through the roof. While it is true that Congress can pass laws and Congress can even repeal laws that have been passed by previous Congresses, what Congress cannot do is repeal the laws of supply and demand. It is important as we look at this legislation before us that we look at whether this legislation is, in fact, designed to fix problems. One of the questions I suggest we need to look to is, Does this bill increase supply? In a global economy we know there is going to be more and more competition for oil and gasoline. We know we are competing, not only in the United States, but literally with China and India, each of which have 1 billion people. Their economies are growing, and the number of people driving and their economic activity is directly related to access to a reasonably priced energy supply. We need to look to see what we are doing at home to try to increase supply. We all know we are dangerously reliant on imported oil from dangerous parts of the world or from places such as Venezuela, governed by the likes of Hugo Chavez. Current energy policy in this country does nothing but make our enemies richer. It does nothing but line the pockets of people like Hugo Chavez or somebody like President Ahmadinejad in Iran--countries pursuing weapons of mass destruction. We have to eliminate the schizophrenia that has characterized our energy policy in the past and look at what commonsense steps Congress can take in order to improve the supply of oil and gas, preferably from our own domestic sources at home, so we are less reliant on these dangerous rulers in other parts of the world for the very lifeblood of our economy. By any measure, the bill that is now before us is an incomplete bill. It deals nearly exclusively with the demand side of the energy equation. While it is worthwhile to aggressively pursue better efficiencies and alternative sources of energy to meet our future energy needs, the provisions in this bill fail to address much of our current energy needs. It is a matter of simple economics. This bill will do nothing to deal with our current energy needs without addressing supply. I fear this bill will also end up being even more expensive for consumers. Both the provisions in the bill and some of the expected amendments from the majority set up unreasonable mandates for renewable and alternative energy sources, which are more expensive. I do not question our need to produce more of our energy from clean and renewable sources, but I believe the winners and losers should be determined by the market, not by the Government. Indeed, this bill determines for Americans which fuels we will use, how much, and at what time. That is the last thing we need the Federal Government to dictate--to determine which fuels we will use, how much, and at what time--when public confidence in Congress under this new majority is at a 10-year low. The last thing we need to do is say: Give us the power to determine what fuels you will use, how much, and at what time. I do believe there is great promise in renewable energy. I am proud that my State, Texas, continues its energy leadership. As a traditional oil and gas State, it now is the largest producer of wind energy in the country--2,749 megawatts as of last year. We are also the largest producer of biodiesel, an industry that has grown rapidly in just the last few years. It is also unwise to turn away from proven and developing technologies to meet our Nation's clean air goals. For example, nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the environment, including land, air, water, and wildlife, of any energy source because it does not emit harmful gasses. It isolates its waste from the environment and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources. I wouldn't necessarily hold out other countries as a model for America when it comes to their energy policies, but I must say a country such as France that generates 80 percent of its electricity by nuclear power does represent a goal that I think the United States ought to strive for, particularly when nuclear power is cheap. It is conducive of a good environment, and it requires a lot less for us to produce in terms of cost and other collateral issues. I think this is one area where we clearly ought to be encouraging greater use of nuclear power, particularly when it comes to our electricity supply. I want to say a word about coal. Coal should also continue to play an important role in our energy future. There are clean coal technologies being developed that could enable us to continue utilizing this abundant domestic resource and--this is important--improve air quality. Coal is also expected to remain one of the lowest cost fuels available. I do believe with Federal investment in programs such as FutureGen, which is a $1 billion investment in clean coal-burning technology, we can use this 300-year supply of coal in our country in a way that is compatible with a good environment and allows us to maintain the diversity of our energy sources which are essential to the growth of our economy, as well as our national security, from the standpoint of depending less and less on people who are trying to do us harm for the very energy we need. It is ironic at a time that we are engaged in the global war on terror that many of the state sponsors of terrorism, many of those areas that are in unstable regions of the world, from the standpoint of the global war on terror, are the very ones being enriched by our current energy policies, which puts a lot of our domestic resources here at home out of bounds and depends, as I say, too much on imported oil and gas. It is important to note there are some differences between the approaches of those of us in this Chamber on how we achieve that sort of energy self-sufficiency in this country, which I believe ought to be our goal. It is important that we, as I said a moment ago, increase supply and that we not inadvertently or otherwise create disincentives for those currently exploring and producing oil and gas. On this side of the aisle, we support increasing America's energy supplies while reducing consumption. For example, the bill we passed in 2005, under Republican leadership, provided incentives for domestic exploration of potential new natural resource supplies and aided the production of affordable domestic energy. Now we are seeing the new majority threaten to overturn several of those successful provisions. Then when it comes to trying to increase supply of gasoline in this country by enhancing capacity of refineries, we have seen those efforts blocked by our friends on the other side of the aisle in the last Congress. Now the majority leader will be offering a substitute amendment, we are told, based on S. 1419 to H.R. 6. This amendment by the Democratic majority leader contains some positive provisions. But, unfortunately, it is promise that is being oversold. Very simply, the legislation produces no new energy and may actually end up raising prices, not lowering them. The Reid substitute, in my opinion, does not produce a viable energy policy for the United States. As a matter of fact, many of the proposals we will hear from the other side of the aisle may actually increase energy prices. For example, we are likely to hear a proposal for a 15-percent renewable portfolio standard which ignores clean energy sources such as nuclear power. This proposal would cost consumers billions of dollars because States simply would not be able to meet it. The majority leader's substitute amendment will also, it looks like, ignore the need for domestic energy supplies and ignores the problem of refining capacity, which experts say is a leading cause of high gas prices; again, simply a matter of supply and demand. With the static supply not catching up to demand, you are going to see gas prices go up. That is what we have all experienced at the pump. This bill makes no effort to increase domestic production and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. This bill also does not pay enough attention to clean alternatives, attempting to mandate energy production solely from renewable sources. While alternative and renewable energy has made a great start in reducing our foreign imports needed for energy, it will be decades before we can produce enough alternative fuels to replace oil and other carbon fuels. It is important we support efforts to increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels, but we should not be sold on unrealistic proposals that will suggest that somehow, in the short term, we are going to be able to replace our dependence on oil and gas, particularly in the transportation sector, where there is not any other viable alternative. It is unrealistic to think we can address our current dependance without producing as much of America's energy as we can here at home. Overlooking sources of new clean energy demonstrates, once again, we are not paying enough attention to our domestic energy supply. Of course, gas prices are up to record levels, particularly since the new majority took over in November. The Reid substitute does nothing to reduce them. We have seen gasoline prices increase almost 50 percent during the last 5 months. Now, when our friends on the other side of the aisle were put in control in last November's election, the price of gasoline was about $2.20 a gallon. Today it averages $3.15 a gallon. The proposals in this bill do nothing to reduce high gasoline prices. In fact, some of the amendments I am told that our friends on the other side of the aisle are considering would actually increase energy prices for the consumers. Neither the Federal Trade Commission nor any State agency that has explored the issue has found any evidence that there has actually been price gouging. I am told there will be proposals to prohibit price gouging, which is already illegal I might add, but by new and vague standards which are impossible for anybody to determine whether their actions are covered, unless perhaps it is too late. This is a diversion from the real energy problems. We all oppose price gouging. I know of no one who supports price gouging. But it is important we understand we need to find new ways to increase our domestic supply and particularly our refining capacities here at home. We see nothing but roadblocks thrown up every time we introduce proposals to try to encourage expansion of refinery capacity, which is the only way we are going to make more gasoline to keep up with the demand and hopefully keep prices down. Now we will see alternatives offered during the course of this debate that will lead to increased domestic production of oil, streamlined refinery processes, and greater investment in research and development and clean vehicles. I think this is an important debate. But we need to be careful about what we are doing again to make sure we do not oversell and underdeliver when it comes to energy policy, because, frankly, I think when it comes to the way the Congress has approached our energy needs, it has been more than a little schizophrenic. The consequence, I think we can all see, is that gasoline prices are too high because refinery capacity is too low. We have actually increased the danger, in terms of our security, by continuing to rely too much on imported oil and gas from dangerous parts of the world, enriching our biggest enemies. At the same time, we have put out of bounds too much of our domestic reserves. So I hope as this debate goes forward, we will have a full opportunity to debate amendments and offer constructive solutions to this problem. That is why I think our constituents sent us here. If we do that, then hopefully this poll I mentioned at the outset, reported in today's Los Angeles Times that reflects 27 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job, hopefully those numbers will go up as we produce constructive solutions to the problems that confront the American people and we do the job we are sent here to do by our constituents. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes. Mr. President, this amendment we will vote on this morning is an important amendment. It was first filed 2 full weeks ago, and it has taken this long to be able to get a vote on this amendment, for which I am grateful, but I must say that, as the Republican leader indicated this morning, the rate of progress with getting amendments debated and voted on is not promising. And the fact that the majority leader has now filed cloture, potentially cutting off the opportunity for full and fair debate and an adequate number of votes on this bill, again, is not encouraging at all. I am one of those who would like to see a solution to this problem, but I think it is important that we reflect on what kind of solution we will accomplish if we are successful. To me, the goal is simply to restore law and order to our immigration system. It is important to our national security because we have to know who is coming into our country and why people are here in a post-9/11 world. It is important to public safety because we know the same broken borders that can allow people who are economic migrants to come across can also allow common criminals, drug traffickers, and even terrorists. And it is important to our prosperity in this Nation that we reestablish our heritage as a nation that believes in the rule of law. We simply cannot have people choosing to obey some laws and disobeying others. That is not adherence to the rule of law. That is picking and choosing, cherry-picking what laws you find convenient and what laws you find inconvenient. To my mind, and based upon my experience with my constituents across the State of Texas last week, this is the cause for so much distrust of the Federal Government when it comes to this issue. The basic objection to this underlying bill is not that people don't believe there is a serious problem, it is not that people are racist or anti-immigrant or nativists or know-nothings or any of the other names that sometimes people are called. It is that the American people believe we have been here before. In 1986, they gave their trust to the Federal Government to actually fix this problem by granting a one-time amnesty and then providing for an enforcement system that would actually be enforced against employers who hire people who cannot legally work here. They were sold a bill of goods. It didn't work. We got an amnesty, and we got no enforcement. That is why people are so distrustful. So if we are serious about restoring the rule of law, I believe the first place to start would be by passing this amendment, amendment No. 1184, on the floor of the Senate. What does this amendment do? Well, first of all, this amendment would mandate that gang members cannot obtain legal status. It is well documented that members of MS-13 and other gangs, ultra-violet gangs emanating from Central America, have come across our broken borders and committed terrible crimes of violence in the United States. In the underlying bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security could actually grant a waiver that would allow a gang member legal status. That just cannot be. Congress should draw a line about whom we are willing to allow in and whom we are not, and we shouldn't delegate this to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security or the Attorney General or anyone who might hold those positions in the future. The next thing my amendment would do is it would address the definition of ``good moral character.'' We would allow only people with good moral character, as defined in the bill, to obtain legal status. The underlying bill does not contain a prohibition on those who are affiliated with terrorist organizations. My amendment makes the commonsense change that would bar them. The amendment also requires that those who apply for legalization under the bill must generally show they have good moral character. Third, my amendment makes the failure of sex offenders to register in high-speed flight crimes grounds of ineligibility for Z visas. Fourth, my amendment makes repeat DWIs, driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence, an aggravated felony. It is a simple fact of life that repeat DWI offenders are a substantial threat to a community's safety. They have a proven history of involvement in various serious collisions that kill, maim, and otherwise seriously injure innocent people. When I was in Texas this last week, I met with representatives of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and told them about the gaps in this underlying bill and received the assurance, at least of that representative, that this was an issue she cared passionately about. I suggest all of us who care passionately about public safety and decreasing the incidence of drunk driving and driving under the influence, that are a threat to public safety, that those who care about decreasing that threat should vote for this amendment. Designating a third DUI offense as an aggravated felony recognizes the acute danger that repeat DUI offenders present to the American people and the strong need to remove from the United States those who repeatedly commit DUI offenses. The fifth category is the one on which I believe there is the biggest disagreement. This has to do with so-called absconders and identity thieves. This gets to the essence of this bill and whether we are serious about restoring the rule of law to our immigration system and whether we are going to send a message, loudly and clearly, that while we might be willing to consider those who have entered our country without a visa, who are by definition guilty of a misdemeanor, or those who have come in legally and who have overstayed, who are guilty of a status violation under our immigration laws--while we might be willing to consider them for a path to legalization and citizenship under some conditions, we should not allow a path to legalization and citizenship for those who have openly defied our courts, the lawful orders of our courts, and who have shown themselves as having no regard for the rule of law. What kind of citizens can we expect these individuals to be, individuals who have been ordered deported, who have had their day in court and who simply defied that court order by going on the lam and melting into the American landscape, or those who have been ordered deported and who have actually been deported but then who have reentered the country? Both of those, going on the lam after you have been ordered deported and reentering after you have been actually deported, are felonies under section 243 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act--a felony. If we are serious about restoring respect for the rule of law, then we should, at the very least, prohibit felons and repeat offenders from getting the Z visa or path to legal status, including the opportunity to apply for legal permanent residency and citizenship. We should be willing to draw a bright line there. I have to say, with all due respect, if we do not adopt this amendment, then we might as well retitle that section of this bill, ``No Felon Left Behind.'' It is clear, whether it is gang members, terrorists, sex offenders or repeat drunk drivers, these people have thumbed their noses at the law. While there is some common ground, and I congratulate Senator Kennedy for moving our way on this issue, it completely omits the category of felons who have shown no regard for our laws and who have shown themselves unwilling to live in peace with Americans in this country. We ought to draw a bright line there. My amendment would do that. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of my earlier amendment which would take the blinders off law enforcement personnel when it comes to investigating fraud and other wrongful and even criminal conduct on the part of those who are claiming an advantage under this legislation, as well as third parties who might be implicated in fraud or other criminality. I would first like to respond to Senator Kennedy's comments, and then I want to speak to the Menendez amendment briefly. Senator Kennedy earlier claimed my amendment eliminated all kinds of protections of confidentiality. He said he provided a level of protection of confidentiality for individuals so it will encourage them to come forward and file their applications for Z visas, and he is worried if we allow law enforcement access to that information to investigate third party fraud or other criminality, the applicants for the Z visas will not be willing to come forward. It should be noted that my amendment does not eliminate all protections. It simply ensures law enforcement has access to information for those who cannot qualify for Z status under the terms of the underlying bill, including those who are criminals and absconders who have reflected their prior disregard for our laws. Also, despite Senator Kennedy's claim, their proposal still protects information for aliens who have committed crimes but have not been convicted and are denied Z status. My amendment would make that information available to law enforcement personnel in the discharge of their official duties. Furthermore, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts acknowledges there was fraud in sworn affidavits and claims. He said he is now alluding to the 1986 fraud under the agricultural amnesty bill that I mentioned in my earlier remarks and which were the subject of a New York Times article dated November 12, 1989. He said we took action in this legislation to fix it. First, let me express my appreciation to the Senator for acknowledging that the third party affidavits that were used to qualify for benefits in 1986 were a large source of fraud. I see nothing in the bill that would ensure that fraudulent sworn affidavits, especially those provided by third parties, are accessible to law enforcement to prosecute the fraud. This type of fraud remains protected and thus we haven't come very far from the problems we encountered in the 1986 amnesty. Senator Kennedy says we must guarantee confidentiality. He said: If we expect individuals to participate in that system, we have to guarantee their confidentiality. It's enormously important. This system isn't going to function and work unless we do. What my esteemed colleague is essentially saying is, we need to protect those who have violated our laws, even committed felonies and other crimes for which they have not yet been convicted, because they would not come out of the shadows and register. The point is, it is more than just coming out of the shadows. It is giving legal status to a person who has arguably violated our laws and put them on a path to citizenship, denying law enforcement the opportunity to investigate and to prosecute where appropriate. Further, we are essentially binding the hands of law enforcement because even if they wanted to prosecute these individuals and remove them from the country, they couldn't get the evidence needed to make the case, nor could they remove the person because by merely applying for Z status, they get the protection from removal. Is that really what we want to say to our country about who should be permitted to remain in the United States? I think not. Nothing in my amendment would affect the ability of those who have entered the country in violation of our immigration laws or who have simply overstayed their visa or even those who have produced false documents in order to gain access to work. My amendment would not even address any of those individuals. This present amendment would not do that. But, surely, we want to remove the cloak of confidentiality, the blinders, from our law enforcement personnel that would allow them to investigate cases of fraud, wrongful conduct, and other criminality. I remain flabbergasted that the proponents of this bill would embrace this sort of provision. I would think what they would want to do is restore public confidence that we are actually reestablishing the rule of law when it comes to this broken immigration system. If anything, this serves to confirm the worst fears of skeptics about this bill because, frankly, it does nothing but confirm their worst fears that this is a vehicle for perpetuating the same sort of mistakes we encountered in the 1986 legislation, but apparently those lessons were not learned. Amendment No. 1194 I want to speak briefly about the amendment offered by Senator Menendez while he is on the Senate floor regarding those who want to immigrate to our country, but particularly those who have respected our laws and who have waited patiently in line. I am particularly troubled by the situation that his amendment is designed to remedy because the proponents of the underlying bill have said: We are not going to allow any line jumping. We are going to provide an opportunity for those who have violated the law to get right with the law, but we are not going to do so to the detriment of people who have followed the rules and waited patiently in line, expecting that their application for a visa or legal permanent residency would be acted on. As I said before the recess, this is a very important principle to me. It is a matter of fundamental fairness and crucial to the integrity of not only our immigration system but our entire legal system. It would be extremely unfair to allow someone who has not respected our laws to be able to obtain a green card before someone who has respected our laws and waited in line for a chance to enter the country legally. I am not talking about the claim that those who wait in line legally have to do it in their home country while someone who is here illegally and obtains a Z card can wait in country. That certainly is an issue. Those who are here illegally are getting the advantage over and above those who have made the decision to obey our laws waiting patiently outside the country. Even Secretary Chertoff, a key negotiator of the compromise, admits in a USA Today article that there is a ``fundamental unfairness'' anytime illegal immigrants are permitted to stay in country, while those who have respected our laws wait patiently outside of the country. I am afraid we make what even Secretary Chertoff admits is a ``fundamental unfairness'' that much more unfair in the underlying bill. To their credit, proponents of this compromise have stated that the proposal would not allow anyone who came here illegally to obtain their green card until everyone who chose to follow the law gets their green card. That is a laudable goal, and that should be our goal. But to achieve this goal, the compromise arbitrarily sets the cutoff date for legally ``being in line'' at May 1, 2005, while setting the date for the end of the line for those illegally here at January 1, 2007. As an illustration, this means someone who chose to respect our immigration laws, chose not to enter illegally, and filed the proper immigration paperwork on June 1, 2005, is not considered to be ``in line'' under the terms of this bill, while someone who decided not to respect the laws and enter illegally on the same date can obtain a Z status and ultimately secure American citizenship. My staff has met with a number of groups who have focused on this particular problem. I know Senator Menendez has been listening to their same concerns. The Asian American Justice Center in particular has made compelling arguments that declaring the end of the line for legal immigration as May 1, 2005, is unfair. Other groups, including the Interfaith Immigration Coalition, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the U.S. Conference of Bishops, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund have written to my office to explain that those people who played by the rules and applied after May 1, 2005, will not be cleared as part of the family backlog pursuant to the terms of the bill and will lose their chance to immigrate under current rules and be placed in line behind Z visa applicants. Some of these groups report that more than 800,000 people who have patiently waited in line will in essence be kicked out of the line. I understand the Menendez amendment will be voted on soon. It addresses an important issue, ensuring that those who decided to abide by the laws will not be disadvantaged simply because they chose not to come here illegally. As I said, I have been struggling with this over the past couple weeks because this is a matter of fundamental fairness. So I continue to consider this amendment. I know others are likewise considering it.

Mr. CORNYN. In addition to questions of why we would want to put out of bounds to law enforcement agencies information which they could use to investigate and identify fraud and criminal conduct, you might ask: Why the double standard? For example, we don't afford these kinds of robust confidentiality provisions for other classes of immigrants such as asylees or battered women or those who fall under the temporary protected status provisions. So why would we have a double standard? When an asylum seeker applies for legal status, that asylum seeker must submit an application and return at a later date for the decision. If that asylum seeker's application is denied, then he or she is taken into custody on the spot, based on information contained in the application. Now, the proponents of this bill will tell us that without these guarantees of confidentiality, those who are already here in the country in violation of our immigration laws will not come forward and seek the benefits of the Z visa provided for under the bill, which leads me to ask: Aren't we granting the biggest benefit that can ever be given to anybody in the world--legal status and a path to American citizenship--even though these individuals have violated our laws? And to be clear, we are talking about those who cannot even establish that they meet the minimum requirements to get this valuable benefit. Even worse, they have continually flouted our immigration and criminal laws. Why would we consciously give these individuals broad privacy protections by the mere filing of their application for Z status, and why would they be treated differently from other immigrants? The proponents say they do exempt from confidentiality those who commit fraud or are a part of some other scheme in connection with their application. Of course, that is the very least we should do. But this bill does not go nearly far enough to effectively enforce our immigration laws and protect the American people from those who could and would and might do us harm. For example, on page 311 of the bill, in section 604(b) labeled ``Exceptions to Confidentiality,'' the drafters of this bill have chosen to protect aliens who are criminal absconders who have not been removed from the United States; that is, people who are under orders of deportation but who have not yet been removed. This is, in fact, a felony offense under 8 U.S.C. 1253, which is punishable for up to 4 years in prison. Yet the underlying bill would provide confidentiality for that individual. We all know that hundreds of thousands of individuals come across our borders each year in violation of our immigration laws. But what most Americans would be shocked to realize is that, according to recent estimates, almost 700,000 aliens who have immigrated illegally or overstayed who have been ordered deported have simply failed to comply with that court order. How many Americans think that it is OK to ignore a court order? How many Americans, after receiving a subpoena from a court, ignore it and simply skip that court date? Let me give two examples of what I am talking about. In section 604(b), the drafters claim they allow law enforcement to go after information for those denied Z status because of felonies and serious criminal offenses, but what is missing are those aliens who have actually committed those felony offenses but who have not yet been actually convicted. In section 604, the drafters further claim they resolve the problem by allowing law enforcement access to those who commit fraud or misrepresentations in their Z applications. But again, what is missing is law enforcement's ability to reach third-party fraud: Where the alien, him or herself may not be complicit but to prosecute the third party, the Government needs the information from the Z application filed by such individuals in order to make the case. Simply stated and summarized, fraud by third parties involved in a Z application; crimes that have not yet resulted in a conviction; absconders--people who have ignored a valid court order and who have yet to be physically removed--as well as those Z visa applicants who are denied on noncriminal grounds, all of those categories of information are rendered confidential and kept from law enforcement authorities when it comes to investigating crime and other wrongful conduct. As I said earlier today, in fact, if we were more interested in regaining the public's confidence that we were actually serious about passing an immigration law that could be and would be vigorously enforced, I don't think I would be up here offering this amendment because it would be agreed to without the necessity of a vote. But strangely, to me, this commonsense sort of amendment is being resisted. In a way, it helps merely confirm what most people across the country-- particularly in my State--seem to suspect, which is that Congress cannot be trusted and is not serious about creating an immigration law system that can be adequately enforced. As my colleagues know, I offered a separate amendment that would categorically bar fugitive aliens from receiving the benefits under this bill. I believe this is an issue of fundamental fairness and integrity of the system. In exchange for what has been offered to this population, which is the largest legalization program in our Nation's history, we should be able to say that for any person who applies for and receives benefits under this program, we will authorize the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service to look at that application and to, if necessary, if warranted under law, arrest that individual who made that application and deport them, in accordance with our laws that Congress has already passed. But the bill the Senate is considering today turns a blind eye to those who apply for the benefits under this bill and are denied. This bill would allow them simply to slide back into the shadows--the precise problem we are being told we are trying to fix. I daresay if you ask a random taxpayer on the street this simple question: Assume an alien comes forward to apply for legal status under this bill. Because the applicant doesn't satisfy one of the criteria for being awarded legal status, the applicant is denied benefits under the bill. What happens to that individual under the Senate immigration bill? If you were to ask that question to a man or woman on the street, I bet you that 100 out of 100 times people would say: Well, they ought to go home, they ought not to be granted benefits under the bill. Certainly, they would say you ought not to hide evidence of fraud or criminality or wrongdoing that could be investigated and prosecuted. Yet the so-called confidentiality provisions my amendment addresses, under the current bill, would prevent law enforcement officials from using information on the application to locate and remove a significant population of those who don't qualify for legalization but have applied for it. To be clear, this is for individuals who have actually applied for a Z visa, or benefits under the program, and have been denied, not those whose Z visa status has been granted. This is, in essence, providing an opportunity--to significant categories of individuals whose applications are considered and rejected--to slide back into the shadows, which is the very problem we are told this solution is designed to solve. The whole point of this exercise, we continue to be told, is to enhance U.S. security by bringing people out of the shadows. But this bill would draw people out, only to allow them to slide back in if they demonstrate they are disqualified for the benefits under the bill--the very people we ought to be focusing on and having deported in accordance with our laws. I remind my colleagues of our Nation's recent history with mass legalization and the consequences of prohibitions on Federal agencies sharing information. As I have stated, reasonable observers have concluded that the 1986 amnesty was rife with fraud. That is the conclusion of the New York Times in the article that will be part of this record, dated November 12, 1989. The title is ``Migrants' False Claims: Fraud on a Huge Scale.'' We also note, for example, from the 9/11 Commission staff statements, that Mohamed and Mahmud Abouhalima, conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, were granted green cards, or legal permanent resident status, under the Special Agricultural Workers Program, which was an amnesty program created by the 1986 bill. Under this Special Agricultural Workers Program, a key component of the 1986 amnesty, these applicants had to provide evidence they had worked on perishable crops for at least 90 days between May 1, 1985, and May 1, 1986; their residence did not have to be ``continuous'' or ``unlawful.'' Nearly 1 million illegal aliens received legal permanent resident status under this amnesty--``twice the number of foreigners normally employed in agriculture'' at that time, according to the 9/11 Commission staff statements. In other words, the inference is inescapable that there was fraud on a huge scale, based on the very kind of confidentiality provisions this bill includes and which my amendment would remove. I wish to make one other point about this ill-conceived confidentiality provision. Under this bill we are considering, Congress would even prohibit the use of information from sworn third-party affidavits that are one of the documents that can prove eligibility. Who could not, with a little bit of creativity and initiative, get some third party to provide an affidavit that says: Yes, you were present on June 1, 2007; thus, you are eligible for the benefits under this program. If you designed a program to welcome and invite and embrace fraud more, I cannot imagine what it would be. Yet that very same sort of affidavit could be rendered confidential and could not be shared with law enforcement personnel, unless my amendment is passed. We already know from well-documented prosecutions of document vendors and other legalization cases that the type of documents submitted-- especially sworn affidavits from third parties, not even relatives--no qualification, just third parties--have been used routinely to further fraud. At the very least, we should not repeat the mistakes of 1986 by allowing the continued use of sworn affidavits by applicants to establish eligibility for the Z visa. My amendment takes care of these concerns. We know one thing: Criminals and terrorists have abused--and will continue to seek ways to abuse--our immigration system in order to enter and remain in this country. I regret this bill we are debating fails to give law enforcement the commonsense tools they need in order to prevent terrorists and others from exploiting the vulnerabilities inherent in any massive legalization. My colleagues may tell you there is a confidentiality exception for national security and for fraud. But to rely solely on these exceptions is simply wishful thinking; it is not going to happen. It doesn't go nearly far enough to reach the kinds of fraud and criminal conduct and other wrongful conduct I have mentioned. This kind of information law enforcement needs may provide valuable leads of which they were previously unaware. Failure to allow law enforcement to connect the dots is a deadly mistake I have heard my colleagues promise they would ``never allow to happen again.'' So I urge those who are truly serious about the commitment to make sure this kind of fraud and the danger associated with it doesn't ever happen again to support my amendment and make a crucial improvement to this legislation. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Nov. 12, 1989] Migrants' False Claims: Fraud on a Huge Scale (By Roberto Suro) In one of the most extensive immigration frauds ever perpetrated against the United States Government, thousands of people who falsified amnesty applications will begin to acquire permanent resident status next month under the 1986 immigration law. More than 1.3 million illegal aliens applied to become legal immigrants under a one-time amnesty for farm workers. The program was expected to accommodate only 250,000 aliens when Congress enacted it as a politically critical part of a sweeping package of changes in immigration law. Now a variety of estimates by Federal officials and immigration experts place the number of fraudulent applications at somewhere between 250,000 and 650,000. lack of manpower and money The Immigration and Naturalization Service has identified 398,000 cases of possible fraud in the program, but the agency admits that it lacks both the manpower and the money to prosecute individual applicants. The agency is to begin issuing permanent resident status to amnesty applicants on Dec. 1, and officials said they were approving 94 percent of the applicants over all. Evidence of vast abuse of the farm worker amnesty program has already led to important changes in the way immigration policies are conceived in Congress. For example, recent legislation to aid immigration by refugees from the Soviet Union was modified specifically to avoid the uncontrolled influx that has occurred under the agricultural amnesty program. Supporters of the farm worker amnesty argue that it accomplished its principal aim of insuring the nation a cheap, reliable and legal supply of farm workers and that it made an inadvertent but important contribution in legitimizing a large part of the nation's illegal alien population. #1,000 Workers, 30 Acres Critics point to cases like that of Larry and Sharon Marval of Newark. Last year they pleaded guilty to immigration fraud charges after immigration service investigators alleged that the Marvals were part of an operation that helped about 1,000 aliens acquire amnesty with falsified documents showing they had all worked on a mere 30 acres of farmland. The amnesty for farm workers was a last-minute addition to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which sought to halt illegal immigration with a two-part strategy. Under a general amnesty, illegal aliens who could prove they had lived in the United States since before Jan. 1, 1982, were given the chance to leave their underground existence and begin a process leading to permanent resident status. And to stem further illegal immigration, the employment of illegal aliens was made a crime. The agricultural amnesty program was adopted at the insistence of politically powerful fruit and vegetable growers in California and Texas who wanted to protect their labor force. In several respects, the provisions for the program were much less strict than the general amnesty program, which drew 1.7 million applicants. Instead of having to document nearly five years of continuous residence, most agricultural worker applicants had to show only that they had done 90 days of farm work between May 1, 1985, and May 1, 1986. 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 to fraud. But he argued that budget decisions had made the battle to combat fraud more difficult. ``There has not been enough diligence in tracking down the fraud,'' he said, ``because funding for the I.N.S. has been cut by the White House in each of the last three budgets, even though everyone agreed when the bill passed that greater I.N.S. manpower was essential to make it work.'' Congress rarely raises the immigration service budget above Administration requests. Aside from its budget problems, the immigration service has repeatedly come under fire this year in Congress and in an audit by the Justice Department for what was termed mismanagement and administrative inefficiency. John F. Shaw, Assistant Immigration Commissioner, agreed that ``manpower restrictions'' at the agency were a major factor in the fraud in the agricultural amnesty program. He said much of the fraud ``shot through a window of opportunity'' when the agency was frantically trying to deal with many new burdens of the 1986 immigration law. people who sold false documents Mr. Shaw said law-enforcement efforts had been limited to the people who sold false documents to applicants for the farm worker amnesty. The immigration service has made 844 arrests and won 413 convictions in cases alleging fraud in the amnesty program. The people involved ranged from notaries public to field crew leaders. ``It was a cottage industry,'' Mr. Shaw said. The immigration service can revoke legal status if it finds the applicant committed fraud, but even this effort is limited. Only applications that appear linked to a fraud conspiracy are held for review, as when an unusually large number of applicants assert that they have worked in the same place. Some 398,000 aliens have fallen into this category since the application period ended last Nov. 30, but it is likely that many of them will get resident status. Mr. Shaw said the fraud conspiracies often involved farms that actually did employ some migrant labor. So it is frequently impossible to separate legitimate from illicit claims. Given the limited law-enforcement effort, no precise count of fraud in the agricultural amnesty program is possible. But some rough estimates are possible based on information from the aliens themselves. An extensive survey conducted in three rural Mexican communities by the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California in San Diego found that only 72 percent of those who identified themselves as applicants for farm worker amnesty had work histories that qualified them for the program. A similar survey conducted by Mexican researchers in Jalisco in central Mexico found that only 59 percent qualified. But fraud alone does not explain why the program produced more than five times the applicants Congress expected. Frank D. Bean, co-director of the Program for Research on Immigration Policy at the Urban Institute in Washington, said the miscalculation in the Special Agricultural Worker program reflected longstanding difficulties in tracking the number of temporary illegal migrants from Mexico. ``It is at least plausible that a very large percentage of the S.A.W. applicants had done agricultural work in the U.S. even if they did not meet the specific time requirements of the amnesty,'' Mr. Bean said. `It Was a Weak Program'. Mr. Shaw of the immigration service, and other critics of the law, believe there were more fundamental flaws. ``It was a weak program and it was poorly articulated in the law,'' he said. Unlike almost all other immigration programs, which put the burden of proof on the applicant, the farm amnesty put the burden on the Government. Consequently, aliens with even the most rudimentary documentation cannot be rejected unless the Government can prove their claims are false. Stephen Rosenbaum, staff attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance, a nonprofit service organization for farm workers, argued that there was no other way to structure an immigration program for an occupation ``that does not produce a paper trail.'' He noted that farm workers are paid in cash and neither the employers nor the workers keep detailed records. `Immense Logistical Problems.' ``You can argue the wisdom of a farm worker amnesty, but if you have one, you have to recognize the immense logistical problems involved in producing evidence,'' he said. The immigration service at first tried to apply the stringent practices common to other immigration programs, like rejecting applicants with little explanation when their documents were suspect. But three lawsuits brought in Florida, Texas and California over the last two years forced the agency to follow the broader standards mandated by Congress. The burden-of-proof issue arose again earlier this year when the House of Representatives approved legislation that would have made any person who could prove Soviet citizenship eligible for political refugee status. A legislator with a powerful role on immigration policy, Senator Alan K. Simpson, Republican of Wyoming, eliminated the provision because of concerns raised by the farm worker amnesty program, an aide said. Mr. Simpson, who is on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs, substituted a series of specific circumstances that had to be met for a Soviet citizen to be considered a refugee, like denial of a particular job because of religious beliefs. Immigration experts believe that the agricultural amnesty program will probably color policy debates over other categories of aliens whose qualifications will be difficult to document, like the anti-Sandinista rebels of Nicaragua. ``One certain product'' of the agricultural amnesty program, Representative Schumer said, ``is that in developing immigration policies in the future, Congress will be much more wary of the potential for fraud and will do more to stop it.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is scheduled for a vote later on this evening, and I would like to spend a few minutes explaining it. This is--well, let me put it this way: If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different outcome, the provisions in the underlying bill that my amendment will correct represents insanity in action because it repeats a mistake made in the 1986 immigration laws that is within our power to correct. I believe the amendment I am offering will allow that correction to take place, and I offer it in that spirit. At the very least, the American people expect we will not intentionally repeat mistakes. They don't expect us to be perfect. They do expect us to do our best, and we owe them that much. But in this case, doing our best means not repeating a mistake. Quite simply, the Department of Homeland Security is, under the current bill, prohibited from using internally all information from Z visa applications, as well as sharing information with the relevant law enforcement agencies. That is right. You can actually apply for a Z visa if you are 1 of the 12 million or so people here in the country already in violation of our immigration laws, whether it is entering without a visa or once having entered with a visa, overstaying that visa, and if you are seeking the benefits of this underlying bill which are mainly represented in the form of a Z visa, the information contained in that application by those 12 million individuals is effectively shielded from law enforcement authorities. For example, if an applicant comes forward and is denied a Z visa, this legislation currently pending prohibits the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service from using that information in order to apprehend that person who is not legally present in the country. What we learned about the 1986 amnesty was that the New York Times said it created the largest immigration fraud in the history of the United States. That same view is shared by the general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under President Clinton with regard to statutory restrictions on sharing and using information. That general counsel, Paul Virtue, noted that this prohibition greatly contributed to this fraud. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article be printed in the Recored and I refer my colleagues to the testimony of Paul Virtue before the House Immigration and Claims Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee at judiciary house.gov/ judiciary/106-52.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with all due respect, the Senator should read the amendment. It does not affect people who have committed identity theft unless they have actually been convicted of that. It would have no effect on people who have entered without a visa or who have come in on a legal visa and overstayed. This is no gutting of the bill; it is only to protect the American people from felons.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would ask the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts if we may go back and forth across the aisle. I have a speaker on our side as well who would like to be recognized for 10 minutes. Is that acceptable?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues for a ``yea'' vote on this amendment. If you voted for the Kennedy amendment, you made an incremental improvement over the current law when it comes to banning criminals from getting the benefit of our immigration system. But in order to exclude felons, people who have shown their contempt and defiance of American law, and unless it is your intent to reward felons who have shown their contempt for the American legal system, to reward them with the most precious gift this country can offer, which is legal status, potentially legal permanent residency and a path to citizenship, you should vote yes on this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me assure my colleague, Senator Kennedy, that only those who have actually been convicted of document fraud would be excluded under my amendment. According to recent statistics, roughly 10 million Americans fell victim to identity theft last year, at an estimated cost of $50 billion to U.S. taxpayers, and victims spent an average of $1,500 and 175 hours to actually recover their good name and their good credit after identity theft. This is not a trivial matter, and it is only people who have actually been convicted, not those who have presented false documents to work in the country who have not been convicted. As far as the woman with four American children and married to an American spouse, my amendment does not touch her rights under current law. For example, we don't touch current law waivers for consent to reapply for admission. We don't touch the Secretary's ability to grant humanitarian parole. And we don't touch the waivers under current law that cover an immigrant who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen. I thought Mr. Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, was satisfied with that answer earlier, but I point that out to my colleagues just so they can be satisfied that there are exceptions for extraordinary circumstances. What this amendment does is it broadly says felons will not be given the benefits of legalization and a path to American citizenship. They have had their chance, they blew their chance, and they have shown themselves unworthy of the trust and confidence of the American people when it comes to living among us in compliance with our laws and respecting the fact that, yes, we are a nation of immigrants, and proudly so, but we are also a nation of laws. Those laws keep us safe, they keep us secure, and they assure our prosperity, and the prosperity of generations yet to come. We cannot, once again, turn a blind eye to the laws that protect all of us, including those immigrants who have come here to become part of our great country and to seek opportunity for their future. I hope my colleagues will support the Cornyn amendment, that they will vote against the Kennedy amendment as a dilution and watered-down figleaf of the Cornyn amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. May I inquire how much time remains on my side, Mr. President?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we have a number of speakers who have commented. I appreciate the wise comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I am not talking about the part where he was complimentary of me; I am talking about his comments on the process and the difficulty, since this bill came to the floor without going through committee, of providing an adequate opportunity for debate and amendments. We have all tried to work our way through this. I do concur it is a terrible mistake in judgment to seek to close off debate on this bill before an adequate opportunity for votes occurs. We have had, by my count--and I could be off one or two--nine rollcall votes on this bill. By way of comparison, when the McCain-Kennedy bill, which later became the Hagel-Martinez bill, was on the floor last year, we had 32 rollcall votes, I believe. We need to have an adequate opportunity to flesh this out. As we have seen here, some of these details get very technical, but they have a profound consequence in terms of the outcome. Let me speak to some of the specific items that have been raised here. As we pointed out, first, there will be a vote on the Kennedy amendment, and then there will be a vote on the Cornyn amendment. With all due respect, I call the first one a watered-down version of the second one. I will point out the differences now, in part. The Kennedy amendment would still allow waivers to allow members of gangs to become legalized under the provisions of this bill. The Kennedy bill would still allow sex offenders to not be barred if they were sentenced to less than 6 months. The Kennedy bill would still allow waivers for firearms offenses; that is, allow people who have been convicted of firearms offenses to get a waiver and to be allowed legal status. My amendment covers those who are associated with terrorist organizations. Those innocents referred to under the material support provisions are covered by a waiver executed by the Department of State and Department of Homeland Security. As we can see, this gets exceedingly technical. Let me focus on sex offenders, by way of example, to point out why these differences are important. My amendment would bar those who have failed to register as sex offenders from becoming eligible for a Z visa and legal permanent residency status and a path to American citizenship. We have spoken in Congress on this issue through such legislation as the Adam Walsh Act. We have made it clear we will monitor and lock up those sex offenders who don't follow the rules and bar sex offenders from bringing individuals into the country whom they may also harm. Yet the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, would still give those sex offenders who fail to register a loophole to exploit if they can plea bargain their case to less than 6 months. The maximum penalty for the underlying offense is no more than 1 year. All of us who have had experience in the legal system, particularly with the criminal law system, understand plea bargains are a way of life and it may well be a very serious sex offender will have plea bargained an indictment against him or her to less than 6 months, and still be allowed entry into the United States under the Kennedy amendment. Here is what the Kennedy amendment does. On page 20 of the amendment, it modifies the exceptions to the criminal bars admissibility by adding failure to register as a sex offender and firearm offenses to the list of offenses excepted from the criminal bars to accessibility. Why would we allow this loophole? We just got this amendment last night, of course. We have not been able to survey the sex offender registry laws of all 50 States. We know there is at least one State-- New York--where first-time failure to register a conviction is a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year. My simple question is: Why would we want to employ a loophole for sex offenders and allow them to gain the benefits under this bill by being eligible for a Z visa, with a path to legal permanent residency, potentially, and American citizenship? My amendment makes clear--unlike the Kennedy amendment--that all these loopholes are closed and this is not possible. I cannot imagine that the American people would feel, among the many other people who are arguably worthy of gaining benefits under this bill, we would want to demean what we are doing here by providing these benefits to people who so clearly have shown themselves unworthy of getting those benefits. I will point out that I know we have had a big debate in this country and in the Senate about what constitutes amnesty. I think the problem is the American people--many of them--don't feel we are serious about restoring the rule of law when it comes to our broken immigration system. I don't mean for a minute to impugn the good faith of Senators who have labored long and hard to try to bring this bill to the floor, and those of us who are trying to improve it, to make it better. But by way of example, these are the sorts of offenses that ordinarily would be punishable under our laws but which are completely ignored when it comes to applicants for a Z visa--and that is the 12 million or so who are here--who have committed these acts. Anyone who has entered the country without being inspected or admitted; that is, who came across the border before January 1, 2007, this bill would make eligible for a Z visa. Any alien who failed to show up for his or her removal proceeding without just cause would be eligible for legal status under this bill. Any alien; that is, any noncitizen, who, through fraud or willful misrepresentation, got a visa or other document or admitted to the United States would be eligible for a Z visa. Any individual who makes a false claim to U.S. citizenship--this is an independent offense against our criminal laws--would be eligible for a Z visa. Any noncitizen who was a stowaway who made their way into the United States, anyone who is the subject of a civil penalty for document fraud would be eligible under this bill for legalization and a Z visa. Any alien who, when trying to enter the country, did not have the proper documents, visa, passport, border-crossing card, et cetera; any alien who remained unlawfully in the United States for less than a year, left the United States before removal, and then tried to reenter in a 3-year period would be eligible for a Z visa under this bill, or was in the United States unlawfully continuously for more than a year, then tried to reenter the United States within 10 years after leaving or being removed from the United States. It gets a little convoluted, but that person would be eligible for a Z visa or legalization and potentially a path to legal permanent residency and American citizenship. Under this bill, any alien who, after previously violating immigration laws, for example, crossed the border multiple times and remained unlawfully in the United States for an aggregate of a year or more under this bill would be eligible for legalization under a Z visa, potentially eligible for legal permanent residency and American citizenship. Any alien who came with another alien who is not admissible to the United States who is certified as helpless due to sickness, disease, and disability and requires the protection or guardianship of an alien. That is one more example of the kind of offenses which ordinarily we would punish under our laws which are waived and not considered when it comes to eligibility of the Z visa. I don't think it is particularly productive on the floor of the Senate to talk about what is amnesty and what is not, but let me talk about the more basic consideration and one reason I think my constituents in Texas have expressed such strong concerns about it. It is really exemplified in the debate we are having on the Cornyn and Kennedy amendments. Are we serious about restoring respect for the law or are we going to simply turn a blind eye to violations in the future? What we are being told by the proponents of this bill--and I believe they in good faith believe this, but it is unfortunate that the bill language itself does not appear to bear out that optimism and hope when it comes to the enforceability--is that this is, as in 1986, the last time we are going to do this. If we deal with the 12 million people who have come into the country without a visa or who have entered legally and who have overstayed their visa, if we give them an opportunity to get a Z visa, this is it, last time, it will never happen again. That sounds ominously similar to what the American people were told in 1986 when there were 3 million people in that category. Now we have 12 million in that category. So the question people have, logically--these are not racists, these are not bigots, they are not nativists, they are not anti-immigrants; these are American citizens who are concerned about their country and about being a country that respects the rule of law--they want to know: Is this going to work? Will it be enforced? Are we serious about restoring the rule of law to our country? I have to say that the sort of fine and requirement that is being required with the Z visa is looked at with great skepticism. Last week, I had a constituent who said: Well, Senator, are you telling me that we are going to allow people who have not respected our immigration laws to pay $5,000, in effect, to buy legal status and then potentially apply for legal permanent residency and then become an American citizen? Who wouldn't go for that kind of deal? That caused me a lot of concern because I, frankly, had not thought about it in those terms. But what causes me even greater concern is the concept that is missing from this legislation that is so important; that is, when it comes to our laws, we believe in the role of deterrence. In other words, when we provide a penalty to somebody for violating the law, one of the considerations is, will it deter people from acting in a similar capacity in the future? I am afraid, when I look at this legislation, it completely omits any consideration of what will deter people from violating our immigration laws in the future. In fact, I am afraid what happens, as pointed out by my constituent, is that it is really viewed as an incentive. If all you have to do is to get into the country any way you can and then wait for the next bill to pass Congress which will allow you to pay a fine and then become legally here and on a path to legal permanent residency and citizenship, that is no deterrent. That is a powerful magnet which will continue to attract people to our country. I say this not in any spirit except to say we have to find a way to fix this. I have been one who wants to try to fix this legislation. The amendments I have offered are in that spirit. But I have to say that we are going to continue to be viewed as nonserious about workability, about enforcement, about restoring respect for the rule of law unless we vote to exclude those who have shown nothing but defiance for our laws by absconding, by going underground even after having their day in court and refusing an order of deportation, or those who have been deported following a day in court, following all the rights our country provides for judicial review and administrative review and who simply left to only reenter again illegally. As I mentioned at the outset, the Immigration and Naturalization Act makes both those categories of individuals felons--felons. This is not a misdemeanor. This is not an inadvertency. These are not people, frankly, who are entitled to the generosity of the American people when it comes to dealing with their legal status. These are people who showed they have nothing but contempt for our laws, for restoring the rule of law, and I just cannot imagine why any Member of the Senate would vote to give these individuals a path to legal residence and a path to potentially American citizenship. If we are going to regain that lost credibility--and I think this is really where the rubber meets the road because, frankly, people across this country don't really believe we are serious about making this work. They are used to a history of being overpromised and undersold when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system. But I believe there is going to be a high price to pay for those of us who are still around in the coming years if, in fact, we pass this law knowing that it has these huge, gaping loopholes that excuse unlawful conduct, which is basically thumbing their noses at the rule of law. If we are not serious about making sure people who go through background checks are actually not criminals or terrorists, if we are not serious about making this work, there is going to be a high price to pay for those who support this legislation only in the coming years to find that it was another scam pulled on the American people. That is why it is so absolutely critical that we continue this debate, and I implore the majority leader to allow us to continue the debate, to allow us to have amendments offered. I understand and we all understand in this country that you win some and you lose some, majorities rule, but that is what we ought to be doing on this bill to make it as good as we possibly can to try to regain the respect and the trust of the American people because, frankly, we don't have it now. That is the reason for the outcry we have heard in my State and around the country when it comes to this legislation. We can fix it. I am an optimist, but we cannot fix it if there is not an opportunity for a full and fair debate and if the majority leader is determined to cut off the opportunity to provide votes on amendments and is going to insist on ``my way or the highway''; in other words, you are either going to have to agree to not let your amendments be heard and to let this bill go to a final vote or the majority leader is going to pull it down and deny us the opportunity to fix this problem. I don't know anyone in the Senate who doesn't want to fix this problem. It is enormously complicated because this problem has festered for 20 years or more without a solution. That is no excuse for not trying, and that is why I have tried, along with my colleagues, to come up with an acceptable solution. I would say 90 percent of it we agree with. There is no light separating us. It is in the 10 percent we talked about that is the subject of important amendments which need to be heard and voted on where we can regain that trust. Let me say in conclusion--and I may reserve a little bit of time--let me say before I sit down, Mr. President, that a ``no'' vote on the Cornyn amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the Kennedy amendment will, in essence, could retitle this section of this bill ``No Felon Left Behind'' because while we have excluded many categories of felons, we have, for some reason, left this big, gaping hole when it comes to those who show nothing but contempt for our laws. We need to fix this bill, we need to make it better, not make it worse, and we have an uphill climb to regain credibility of the American people to show we are serious and we want to restore our reputation as a nation that believes in the rule of law. A ``no'' vote on the Cornyn amendment will do nothing to help it; indeed, I think it will confirm the worst suspicions of the American people--that we really are not serious about fixing this problem. Mr. President, I yield the floor but reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I agree it is a good idea to try to give our colleagues notice as to when a vote will occur. I am happy to agree we can have the vote at 11:45. I probably will not use all of my time, but it depends on how wound up I get.

Mr. CORNYN. What my amendment would do would not order her deported. What it would do is say she is ineligible for a Z visa.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, may I inquire whether the Senator intends to speak for or against the--

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I disagree with the characterization of the Senator from Illinois. As this hypothetical individual is married to a U.S. citizen, she could get a waiver on that ground because she is married to a U.S. citizen. She would not, under existing law--she could get a waiver and would not be deported necessarily.

Mr. CORNYN. I think that takes care of it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. CORNYN. Yes.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Alabama 10 minutes from our allotted time.