John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. In response to the question, that is a provision of current law that my amendment does not touch.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will be glad to try to answer the question. Similar to a lot of hypotheticals, it has a lot of twists and turns. Let me give it a try. Under this amendment, people who entered the country illegally and who are guilty of illegal entry, or who come in legally and overstay, would not be rendered ineligible, not under the Cornyn amendment. Those who are repeat offenders--in other words, people who have entered illegally, then exited the country and reentered; exited, reentered-- are guilty of a more serious offense because they are multiple offenders. I am not sure, under the hypothetical the Senator asked, whether this individual would be barred. But people who are serial offenders and violators of our immigration laws would be barred under this amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand we have 2 minutes equally divided before the vote. Simply stated for my colleagues, my amendment would remove the blinders that would prevent law enforcement from investigating and prosecuting wrongful conduct, including fraud and criminality. I would think if there is one thing we learned from the 1986 amnesty, this type of confidentiality provision, if it protects any information to be gleaned from the applications of those who have actually been denied Z visas, it would be that we should pursue and support this kind of amendment which would help law enforcement and, even more importantly, help restore public confidence that we are not playing games with them but that we are actually serious about restoring the rule of law when it comes to our broken immigration system.

Mr. CORNYN. I will, Mr. President.

Mr. CORNYN. I know we have a number of colleagues who not only are Members of the Senate but are also running for the highest office in our land, running for the office of President of the United States. I know there have been a number of debates on the Democratic side and Republican side. I believe this amendment and the vote on this amendment is a defining issue for those who seek the highest office in the land, for them to demonstrate their respect for the rule of law and to demonstrate their desire to return law and order to our immigration system. A ``no'' vote on the Cornyn amendment will demonstrate that we are not serious, that we do not believe the rule of law deserves respect because, unfortunately, under the Kennedy amendment, the alternative is literally a figleaf that has been offered to give people the sense they voted for something so they will have an explanation, even knowing they have not voted to exclude these felons. A failure to vote yes on the Cornyn amendment will indicate we are not serious about restoring the rule of law through our immigration system and will indicate we are willing to allow felons and people who have no desire, based on their experience, to comply with our laws and live in peace in this country, to become part of America. I think we need to send a loud and clear message as to where that line should be drawn. I reserve the remainder of our time on this side and yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Amendment No. 1250

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know it has been a long day. But the majority leader has filed a cloture motion which will be voted on tomorrow. There is concern that there are many amendments that have been filed which have not been allowed to be called up and be made pending. While I think there have been some recent indications that there is more of a willingness to allow amendments to be considered, I am very concerned, because of the procedural posture we will find ourselves in very soon, that some of these amendments will not be allowed to be considered. I am concerned as well that may very well affect how many of us are required to vote on cloture. I think there has been a recent spirit of cooperation which I hope continues. But if there is going to be an insistence on a vote on cloture, and at the same time a denial of the opportunity of many of us to call up amendments and actually have them considered and voted on, I do not think we will have any alternative but to vote against cloture. I regret the reluctance to allow us to call up amendments continues at this time. If permitted, I want to call up at least four of my amendments: 1400, 1208, 1337, and 1399. But I understand there has been objection lodged. There likely will be objection lodged to additional unanimous consent requests. I would note for the record here that there are a lot of other amendments that have not been allowed to be considered, and we have got a lot of work to do before we can consider that everybody has had the opportunity to call up amendments and have them voted on.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the hour is late and we have had a long day. I think it has been a very productive day. Due to the delay in getting amendments actually voted on, of course, the amendment I had voted on this morning had been pending for a full 2 weeks before we were able to secure an agreement to vote. I ask unanimous consent to call up some of my pending amendments so we can get them pending. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 1400, which is at the desk, be called up for immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I do not dispute the numbers. They are what they are. But I would point out that this bill did not go through the Judiciary Committee. Last year when the McCain-Kennedy amendment and the bill considered in the Judiciary Committee, I believe there were 62 amendments filed. I think there were a lot more filed than that, but actually 62 amendments. So there was a process at the Judiciary Committee level last year which gave people an opportunity to have their positions heard. That has not been the case this year. I would point that out as an obvious point of distinction. I hope there is not going to be any attempt to try to force this bill through before Senators are ready to consider all or at least a reasonable number of amendments, because I do not think we will have any alternative but to vote against cloture, to allow debate to continue and allow additional amendments to be heard.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I believe a demonstration of willingness to allow us to call up amendments and have them debated and actually voted on would have been reflected in the last 2 weeks. As I have pointed out, I was denied for a full 2 weeks an opportunity to have the very first amendment I called up actually scheduled for a vote. I know the distinguished deputy majority leader is acting in good faith. But I think we need to have a vote on that cloture motion at the time it is currently scheduled. So I would respectfully object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think, in response to the inquiry, I would like to see the amendment before I begin the debate. What I propose is to see the amendment tonight and be prepared when we come into session tomorrow morning to begin that debate. The chances are we will be able to yield some time back, but I am proposing 2 hours, evenly divided, and then to schedule the vote sometime before noon tomorrow morning at a time agreed upon by the bill managers and the leadership.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think we are making some progress. I accept the invitation of the Senator from Massachusetts. Let's talk and write this up. Then we can make sure we are all on the same page. The fundamental agreement would be a 2-hour time agreement to debate this tomorrow morning, with a vote no later than noon tomorrow at a time mutually agreed upon by the leadership and the bill managers. I think we can come to some agreement on that basis. With that, based on that understanding, then, I will be glad to remove my objection. I withdraw my objection to proceeding with the DeMint amendment, and I withdraw my consent request for the time being.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator is correct with the exception that I agree we can have the vote tomorrow. If there is no objection to my unanimous consent, I am glad to accommodate Senator DeMint or other Senators to allow them in the interim to call up other amendments. I would like to have a time locked in for a vote on my amendment--which would then have been pending for a full 2 weeks without a vote-- tomorrow morning. I would like to see what the amendment looks like before we leave today.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, without unnecessarily repeating myself, I have been waiting 13 days for a vote on my amendment. I am afraid if I consent to this unanimous consent request, it is going to continue the pattern of avoiding my amendment, which would ban felons from getting Z visas under this underlying bill. I think that is something with which the American people, and hopefully the vast majority of the Senate, would agree. This amendment is well taken. It is a good thing. Let's not allow people--those who have had a chance, who defied the law, who thumbed their nose at our courts--to gain the advantages we are otherwise going to confer on people under the Z visa. I will object. As I indicated, I am willing to offer an alternative unanimous consent request that once I am shown the side-by-side amendment that I am told the majority has in mind, that they would like to offer as an alternative to my amendment No. 1184, I will be willing to enter into a time agreement with 2 hours equally divided to debate and then to vote on my amendment tomorrow. I will not enter into a unanimous consent agreement to debate an amendment side-by-side which I have not seen and which has been 13 days in the making. I think my request is a reasonable one. I am trying to work with my colleagues here but, frankly, I do not feel as if it has been a two-way street. That is my unanimous consent request.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me point out, if I may, that amendment No. 1184, which I filed and called up 13 days ago, has yet to receive a vote on this immigration bill. This amendment would ban felons on the legalization path set forth in the underlying bill. It astounds me this could be in the least bit controversial, but I have been denied an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on that for the last 13 days. Now that I hear the majority leader intends to file cloture, it is clear what the pattern is, and that is to try to move this bill through without an opportunity for Senators to be given the chance to introduce, call up, debate, and then vote on important amendments. So I will object. I likewise object to the scheduling of any other votes on the bill until I am given an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on amendment No. 1184. I add that I have offered to my colleagues the possibility we could enter into some sort of time agreement to debate and to vote on the amendment. I am told there is a side-by-side amendment that is being considered. I was told it would be made available to me at 4 o'clock this afternoon. It would have been the second side-by-side amendment that had been proposed. I have yet to see it. I have tried to be patient, and indeed I have been patient. I have tried to work with my colleagues to let the process move forward, but it is clear to me now, since the majority leader says he intends to file cloture, there is not going to be an opportunity to fully debate and offer amendments to this bill; that the majority leader intends to try to force this bill through, denying Senators an opportunity to have a chance to offer amendments, to have those amendments debated, and have those amendments voted on. I must employ whatever tools the Senate rules give me to insist upon my rights. I will do that by objecting to this and the schedule of any further votes until such time as we are able to enter into some sort of agreement for the disposition of amendment No. 1184.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this is a sad time for the Senate. As we continue with the important business of the Nation, we pause for a few moments to think about our common loss of one of our kindest, most dedicated, and most thoughtful colleagues, Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming. All of us have our own private memories of our relationship with Craig. Mine is of him as a kind of silent leader, kind of an atypical character, if you will, in the Senate. When I got here 4\1/2\ years ago, someone alleged--and this is a broad characterization--someone said: Welcome to the Senate, a place that has 100 large egos and 200 sharp elbows. I think what that person forgot to do was account for somebody such as Craig Thomas, who was never jockeying for the headlines and spotlight but always focused on his work and quietly, every day, made a difference. I learned firsthand in recent months, as I began working with a number of Senators on this side of the aisle, trying to encourage their active participation in the floor debates, Craig understood it is open debate and discussion in this, the world's greatest deliberative body, that protects and extends democracy. Indeed, every week as we met, Senator Thomas would simply ask: What can I do, John? It is that fundamental desire to serve the public, the most basic and fundamental question of all that best characterized Senator Craig Thomas: What can I do? He was a defender of American values. From his service in the Marine Corps to his time in the House and the Senate, he served with courage and integrity. Nowhere was that more apparent than in the way he served and handled his final illness. You never would have known that he had been through chemotherapy or that he was not feeling well. The only way you would know is because his hair had fallen out as a result of the chemotherapy. It was almost back in its original form. But you never would know from his attitude, which was always upbeat, always positive, never looking for sympathy but simply, day in and day out, doing his dead level best to represent the people of Wyoming in the Senate. He was known as one of the people's most staunch advocates, leading the charge against Government waste and always fighting higher taxes. In many ways, Senator Thomas was an example to all of us. In an environment that can sometimes turn too nasty, his friendly demeanor and his dedication to his country was always a reminder that public service is more than a duty, it is a privilege. It can be conducted in a way that does not turn political adversaries into personal enemies. It can be done without bitterness, without anger, and with dignity. I know Craig was honored to be able to represent the State of Wyoming and that the State of Wyoming was privileged to be served by such a man. Wyoming and the Nation now mourn the loss of this great Senator, this great patriot, this fine husband and father, and this good man. He left an indelible mark on the Halls of the Senate and America in general. He will be missed. For Susan and all the Thomas family, Sandy and I say to you, you are in our thoughts and prayers, as I know you are in the thoughts and prayers of countless millions of people all across this great land. In these trying times, we are all comforted by the strong faith in God that Craig exemplified, as well as the enduring legacy he left and his positive impact upon the Nation. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am certainly going to yield to Senator Allard, if I may make a brief--about 1-minute--response to my friend, Senator Salazar. I have in my hand the bill that was actually laid down by the majority leader and others. It is 789 pages. This is not actually the bill we are on. As you know, and as my colleagues know, there has been a substitute bill that was not put in final legislative language until Tuesday. Those who did not participate in the closed-door meetings that produced what has been sometimes called the ``grand bargain''--while I have been clear to give them credit where credit is due--I think they would appreciate the fact that not everybody has had access to the same information. Certainly not all Members of the Senate and our staffs have had access to the legislative text we are actually voting on and to which we are actually offering amendments. As the Senator from Colorado acknowledged, we all know how complicated this subject is. It is enormously detailed. We are doing our best to try to keep up. My hope is we can continue to work together to try to work our way through this. I think that is the spirit in which we are all trying to work. Nobody wants to blow this up. We all want to find a solution. We have some differences on what those solutions might be, but this is where those differences are debated, where the process allows amendments, suggested changes and improvements to be offered, and then in the end we will vote. But I wished to express my concerns that we be given the opportunity to do a good, conscientious job on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of the American people, in what I believe is the single most important domestic issue confronting our country today. That is the sum and substance of my part. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Senator Allard.

Mr. CORNYN. I would answer the distinguished Senator by saying there have been some modest steps in improving the flaws in last year's bill. As we have discussed privately and on the Senate floor, I think we ought to give some credit where credit is due to see this bill strengthened over the flawed bill that passed the Senate last year. But to answer his question, there are still confidentiality provisions in this bill which would allow fraud to go undetected, uninvestigated, and not prosecuted. I don't know why in the world we would possibly stand silently and allow that to happen. I am not going to, and that is the reason I have offered this amendment. I see on the Senate floor the other distinguished Senator from Colorado, my friend Mr. Allard, who has also offered other important legislation to allow information sharing between law enforcement personnel. It was as a result of the Swift meatpacking plant raids that Senator Allard held meetings on, which I attended, that we learned the very tool that our Federal Government has given employers to confirm eligibility to work is flawed, and Social Security information cannot be shared with the Department of Homeland Security. So we find people, such as the Swift meatpacking plant operators, using the Basic Pilot to check whether a person shows up and says: My name is John Cornyn, and here is John Cornyn's Social Security number. They run it through Basic Pilot. It says, yes, that is John Cornyn's Social Security number, but the fact is, it is Ken Salazar using John Cornyn's Social Security number, or somebody else, and it doesn't root out that kind of fraud. What we need to do is make sure all manner of fraud and illegality are capable of being fully investigated, fully prosecuted, where warranted, and that our laws are enforced. That is the flaw that my amendment seeks to correct. And I continue to believe other amendments that have so far not been allowed to be called up, some 107 that have been filed, when we actually had votes on 30 amendments in last year's bill, and we have only had 7 so far, that we are really not going at the kind of pace at which I would hope we would proceed to be able to amend and improve this bill in a way that we could be proud of and that we would know would actually work. That, to me, is one of the key pillars upon which this legislation ought to be built: Will it work? Can it be enforced? If it can't, we will have failed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have been on this immigration bill now, by some accounts, for 5 days. I will note that we started with a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed at, I believe, 5:30 Monday afternoon. We had Tuesday on the bill, we had Wednesday on the bill, we had Thursday on the bill; here we are on Friday. My understanding is that the agreement between the parties is that I will be only allowed to offer one additional amendment, in addition to the one currently pending. I understand that limitation, but I want to make clear that I think it sends a bad signal in terms of where this bill is headed in the long run because, all along, while I applaud the majority leader and the minority leader for their willingness to give us an additional week on this bill after the recess, I am worried that because of the slow progress we are making on these amendments, particularly on getting an opportunity to vote on amendments--for example, the one I laid down early on this week--we are going to find ourselves in for a train wreck the week after the recess, when the amendments that have been filed will need to be considered. I am afraid there will be an effort to try to prevent important amendments from being considered. Let me give you a little context for my concerns. As we all know, this bill was negotiated largely behind closed doors by a bipartisan group of Senators. I have to say that, in many respects, the product we have before us is better than the bill that passed last year, although I could not support it in the end because I have amendments I think are needed to improve it. To give you some context about the need for a robust debate and the freedom to offer amendments and to consider various points of view other than those reflected behind those closed doors, I went back to look at the Judiciary Committee last year, which considered the original McCain-Kennedy bill. There were 62 amendments filed in the Judiciary Committee. The present occupant of the chair knows, as a member of that Committee, it is a very hard-working Committee that considers a lot of important and contentious issues. That committee was bypassed through the process by which this bill has come to the floor this year. Just an observation. Last year, there were 62 amendments filed in the Judiciary Committee alone that went through a process that was not observed this year. So far, by my current count, there have been 107 amendments filed to the present bill. We have had seven--count them-- rollcall votes on amendments so far this week. I don't see any way, short of an attempt to try to cut off debate and to cut off the offering of amendments the week we return, we are going to be able to get through 107 filed amendments. I think it is important, for a variety of reasons, that we continue to have a robust debate and the freedom to offer amendments because, for the reasons I mentioned a moment ago, this product was largely negotiated behind closed doors by a bipartisan group of Senators. Most of the Members of the Senate have not had a chance to study this bill in great detail, until the final legislative text was prepared by legislative counsel a couple of days ago. This is an enormously complex issue. The bill has a lot of different moving parts. We bypassed the committee process. My hope is--and this is my plea to our leadership--that we continue to see the kind of expansive opportunities that have been provided so far, with 2 weeks set aside for the debate and to have an opportunity to offer amendments and to have votes on those amendments. I will point out that on the last bill, which ended up being the Hagel-Martinez compromise, there were 30 rollcall votes, according to my notes. We have had seven so far on this bill, and here we find ourselves on Friday and we have one more week scheduled by the majority leader. I am very concerned that we will not be able to get due consideration of all of the various points of view, and an opportunity to freely offer amendments and get rollcall votes on those amendments that I believe are very important. It is even more important, if it is possible, in this particular legislation. As my colleague from Colorado knows, he and I were both present during many of the negotiations that have led up to this bill, even though ultimately he agreed to the product, but I could not. That this is an enormously emotional and contentious issue. I bet Senators have gotten more phone calls, e-mails, and correspondence about this issue than virtually anything else that has come before the Senate. It is extraordinarily important to the democratic process and the legislative process to allow people to present their points of view. We are here as 100 people representing 300 million people. We need to make sure that not only the opinions and points of view of the elites and people who can hire high-priced lobbyists are considered; we need to make sure the views of the American people are considered, given an opportunity for airing and, ultimately, we all respect the process by which these matters are put to votes, and then we respect the right of the majority to make the decision and we move forward. Anything that would even hint of cutting off the opportunity for the American people to have a full airing of their views, and limiting it to a handful of amendments that have been advocated by lobbyists and other people representing the elites in Washington, DC, I think would be a terrible mistake. Mr. President, I want to advise my colleague from Colorado of this. There has been a previous agreement that we would be allowed to offer two amendments, and that other amendments would not be allowed to be pending. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and send amendment No. 1238 to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. I will.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Colorado, Senator Allard, I believe there is an amendment at the desk, No. 1189. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and ask for the immediate consideration of that amendment, No. 1189.