Negro Leagues Baseball Museum

NEGRO LEAGUES BASEBALL MUSEUM

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to return to the issue before us and which has been before the Senate for the last week and a half, and to say it has been my pleasure to work on the issue of immigration reform and border security ever since I have been in this Senate--a little over 3 years now.

As a Senator from a border State, it will come as no surprise that I have actually spent a fair amount of time along the border talking to my constituents, as well as visiting Mexico and other countries that are a source of a large number of immigrants who come to our country seeking a better life.

I believe that experience has given me some insight into what the challenges we have are when it comes to border security. Of course, we have proposals before this body to deal with this issue of our porous borders and the need to find some way to deal with the workforce demands of this growing economy of ours.

We need comprehensive immigration reform. I have consistently called for comprehensive reform because I believe we will not fix the broken immigration system unless we address all aspects of the problem; that is, border security; interior enforcement; worksite enforcement; and the 12 million who are in our country without authorization, finding some way to allow them to reenter our immigration system legally, and to give them a second chance living in the country, not in the shadows but out in the open, and enjoying the benefits and protection of our laws.

This is, as we have all discovered, an exceedingly complex issue. And no one--no one--has a monopoly on all wisdom or on suggestions for ways to improve the system. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has one amendment pending that I believe will improve the proposal on the floor of the Senate, which is the bill produced by the Judiciary Committee. He has sought a vote, and I have joined him in seeking a vote, on that amendment to the bill that is on the floor. I have several other amendments that have been filed that will also, in my opinion, improve the work of the committee.

But we have been denied an opportunity to have those amendments considered and voted on by the Senate because the Democratic leader has simply refused to allow any amendment that he personally does not agree with to get a vote. We have had three votes in the last week and a half, relatively--I should say completely noncontroversial votes--but the Democratic leader has refused to let the Senate vote on Senator Kyl's amendment.

This is particularly troubling to me because it is one that I believe the American people would wholeheartedly agree with, and that--whatever we decide to do with regard to the 12 million people who are currently living in our country in the shadows and outside the law--we ought to make sure whatever we do does not include a blanket amnesty for 500,000 or so felons, individuals who have committed at least three misdemeanors, and those who have had their day in court, who are under final orders of deportation or who have agreed to voluntarily leave the country once they have been caught in the country illegally.

Those individuals, either because they have had their day in court or because they are, in fact, felons or people with criminal records, ought not to get the benefits, whatever they may ultimately be, of the amnesty that is proposed in the underlying bill.

This is especially troubling to me because, as I have said earlier, if you look at what happened in 1986, with the Immigration Reform Act that was passed then, Congress, in effect, told America you should trust us to enforce the laws, but, of course, as we now know, that did not happen. Indeed, when the amnesty was granted in 1986, some 3 million people stood to benefit from that amnesty.

I have demonstrated here on the floor that that amnesty, which we all agree, in fact, meets that definition, was a complete and total failure. The reason why it was a complete and total failure is because the American people were, in essence, told one thing and Congress did another.

I believe the American people will forgive an awful lot of mistakes, but they will not forgive being fooled twice. The proposal that is on the floor now, the committee bill that is being proposed, would, in fact, be a repeat of what happened in 1986, except to the extent that it is actually even worse because in 1986, in order to get the benefit of the amnesty, you could not be a felon, you could not be a person with at least three misdemeanors, but under this bill, as offered and as voted out of the Judiciary Committee, you can. Thus, you can see the importance of having a vote on this amendment, which we have been denied, even though it was offered last Friday.

Now here we come up on the midweek, and we are going to have a recess of Congress for the next 2 weeks after this Friday, and I am afraid that because of the lack of movement and progress on this bill, there are going to be some who are going to be blamed for our inability to move forward. And I submit--I hate to say this, but I submit that the blame lies on those who simply denied the greatest deliberative body on the planet from the chance to actually consider and vote on amendments to this bill.

This is not democracy. This is not what we are trying to export to other countries that have known nothing other than the boot heel of a tyrant. This is not our finest hour because what we are seeing is the minority leader on the other side simply denying democracy in action.

It is intolerable and inexcusable.

It is clear to me that if we are unsuccessful in getting this bill through the floor and passed and an opportunity for the process to reconcile the differences between the Senate and the House version, should we get a Senate version, the blame will lie at the feet of the Democratic leader.

One of the things Congress promised the American people in 1986 was there would actually be a fraud detection system as part of the amnesty that was then granted to make sure it would actually be successful and that we would not have to find ourselves in the condition we are in today where at the time we had 3 million who benefited from the amnesty and now today the potential number is 12 million. We know the potential for amnesty is a huge magnet for those who come to this country in violation of our immigration laws. I don't want to find the Senate, 5 or 10 or 20 years from now, saying: In 1986, it was 3 million who wanted to benefit from amnesty. In 2006, it was 12 million. And 20 years from now we find the number is 24 million.

We know this is a national security problem. We know that we have, as a sovereign nation, a right to protect our borders. We know there are on average 2,300 people coming into our country each day. Each day the Democratic leader denies us an opportunity to fix that problem, to allow the process to go forward, we are seeing 2,300 more people come into the country illegally. I hope and pray it is not a criminal, a terrorist, someone who intends to do us harm but, indeed, it could well be.

The Democratic leader supports a bill that would grant an automatic path to citizenship for 12 million people who are in this country in violation of our immigration laws, yet he won't allow a vote on an amendment that would bar felons and repeated criminal offenders from participating in the program. He argues that he likes the bill voted out of the Judiciary Committee and doesn't believe that amendment will, in fact, improve it. He certainly is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to obstruct the process. He is not entitled to dictate to the Senate or the American people what this particular legislation will look like.

I simply don't understand why this amendment, that would bar felons and repeat offenders and which actually clarifies that they can't be given whatever benefit will be conferred by this bill, would create any controversy whatsoever. If the American people were polled or asked, do you think we ought to bar convicted felons, do you think we ought to bar repeat criminal offenders from the grant of amnesty, I think they would say yes. If given an opportunity for a vote on the floor, this body will say yes, because we are representative of the American people. Yet we have been denied that chance for a vote.

There is simply a credibility gap with the American people on immigration and border security. Congress needs to openly debate and vote on amendments so there is transparency regarding who will receive green cards and whether there are sufficient protections against fraud that ran rampant during 1986, with the amnesty that was granted at that time. As someone who has worked on this issue and devoted time to it, I want nothing more than the opportunity to debate and vote on amendments. I am interested, and I believe most Senators are actually interested, in trying to find a solution to this problem. But we are met with obstruction and a refusal to let the process move forward. It is simply unacceptable.

We cannot debate and vote on amendments until there has been an agreement on who will participate in the program and the extent to which fraud can be detected and prevented. Yet the Democratic leader does not believe it is necessary to secure the confidence of the American people that Congress is not giving amnesty to felons or repeat criminal offenders. Without public debate and votes with regard to the foundation of this proposal, none of us will be able to return home and defend the broader policy implications of this complex legislation.

The Kyl amendment has been pending since last Thursday. Not a single Senator has voted to table that amendment. Yesterday we went through a strange exercise where, in order to determine how we can obtain some progress on this bill, there was actually a motion to table the Kyl amendment that would bar felons and repeat criminal offenders. Every single Senator who voted voted not to table the amendment. Ordinarily that would indicate an agreement with the amendment. Yet we were not given an opportunity to vote on the amendment. The amendment ordinarily would be accepted by the manager of the bill or would be subject to a voice vote and become part of the larger bill, but that didn't happen because we, unfortunately, have some people in the process who are not interested in finding solutions. They are not interested in allowing the process to move forward but, rather, they are more interested in trying to jam their solution down the throat of the rest of the Senate and to deny the rest of us a chance to offer suggestions and to get votes.

I don't like to lose any more than anyone else, but I am willing to submit to this body amendments that I have and on which I wish to have a vote. I hope to persuade my fellow Senators that these amendments are actually an improvement over the bill that is before the Senate. But if this body decides, 51 or more Senators decide, to vote against those amendments, I am willing to accept that. That is democracy. That is majority rule. But to simply defy majorities and the process and say, if I don't like it, I am not going to allow anybody else to amend it, is unacceptable. In an institution known as the world's greatest deliberative body, it brings this body no honor to obstruct the process and to try to jam this unacceptable bill down our throats.

The current committee bill disqualifies from the legalization program any alien who is ineligible for a visa. The Kyl-Cornyn amendment would clarify that by saying any alien who is ineligible for a visa or who has been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors would be ineligible from the legalization program.

There are certain crimes, including felonies, that do not disqualify an alien for a visa. This amendment, therefore, ensures that no felon or repeat criminal offender will obtain an automatic path to a green card and permanent residence in the United States.

This amendment is exactly the same text that was in the 1986 amnesty. In other words, the very amendment Senator Kyl and I have offered to exclude felons and three-time misdemeanants was part of the 1986 amnesty. So the proposal on the floor is even weaker than the amnesty granted in 1986.

All we are trying to do is to bring it on a par with that amnesty of 1986. Crimes that do not automatically disqualify an alien for a visa and would not, therefore, be covered by the Judiciary Committee bill that is on the floor include assault and battery, manslaughter, kidnapping, weapons possession--for example, possession of a sawed-off shotgun--contributing to the delinquency of a minor, burglary, including possession of tools to commit burglary, malicious destruction of property, possession of stolen property, alien smuggling, conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, and money laundering. Unless we are able to get a vote on the amendment that is now pending that Senator Kyl and I have offered to exclude felons and three-time misdemeanants, the proposal this body is asked to accept would give amnesty to people who have engaged in alien smuggling, manslaughter, kidnapping, or illegal possession of a sawed-off shotgun.

The American people will forgive a lot, but they won't be fooled again. And they won't forgive us if a minority of this body tries to jam down the throats of the rest of the Senate provisions which would allow the entry of these individuals into the United States and would confer a blanket amnesty and a path to a green card and legal permanent residency in the United States. It simply defies common sense.

I have a number of additional amendments I intend to offer and intend to ask for a vote on. I will not be satisfied--and I submit there are other Senators who will not vote to close off debate--until we get a chance to have these considered on the Senate floor. One amendment, No. 3310, addresses the confidentiality provisions. The Judiciary Committee amendment that is on the floor contains provisions that would prohibit the use of information furnished by an applicant to be used for any purpose other than a determination on the application. While the committee amendment would allow the information to be shared with law enforcement entities upon their request, the information could not be used by the Department of Homeland Security to investigate fraud in the program.

It is also worth noting that these provisions almost word for word were included in the 1986 amnesty but are missing from the proposal that is now on the floor. These confidentiality provisions have been cited by Government authorities as one reason why there is so much fraud in our immigration system, particularly the amnesty that was granted in 1986.

For example, the testimony of Paul Virtue, former Immigration and Naturalization Service general counsel, in 1999 before the House regarding fraud in the prior amnesty program:

There is no question that the provisions of [that 1986 amnesty] were subject to widespread abuse, especially the Special Agricultural Worker program that granted agricultural workers who had performed 90 days of qualifying agricultural employment within a specific period temporary lawful status that automatically converted to permanent lawful status after one year.

Nearly 1.3 million applications were filed under [this Special Agricultural Worker] status, about double the number of foreign farm workers usually employed in the United States in any given year.

Much of the fraud that occurred under the IRCA--the 1986 amnesty bill--is attributable to statutory limitations placed on [the Immigration and Naturalization Service].

The confidentiality restrictions of law ..... prevented INS from pursuing cases of possible fraud detected during the application process. The agency was further thwarted by the courts, which ruled that INS could not deny an application simply because the supporting documentation was from a claimed employer suspected or convicted of fraud.

Let me say that again. He said the confidentiality restrictions contained in the underlying bill here that I want to amend thwarted the INS from denying an application simply because the supporting documentation was from an employer ``suspected or convicted of fraud.''

In 1986, just a few million amnesty applications were filed, but under this bill, Congress is now considering an amnesty for 12 million immigrants who are in this country in an unauthorized status. We need to make sure we don't hamper the Immigration and Naturalization Service's ability to detect fraud. Yet this amendment would repeat the worst failures of that 1986 amnesty.

One other amendment I have filed and intend to call up, if we are ever given a chance to have amendments and votes on this bill, is amendment No. 3309.

The committee amendment pending on the floor, which I offer this amendment to improve, would create safe harbors for illegal aliens who have filed applications for conditional immigration status.

To be clear, these are not aliens who have yet established eligibility, or have even gone through background and security checks. They have simply filed an application with the Government, and their application might be in a stack of 10 million other applications.

Under this committee amendment, the one pending on the floor, to be clear, the Department of Homeland Security would be required to issue a travel document and an employment authorization document to an alien before the agency has even determined eligibility under the program. Travel documents are as important as weapons. Yet this section would require the Department of Homeland Security to issue a travel document to all illegal aliens simply because they have filed an application.

Under the underlying bill, an illegal alien may not be detained, ordered deported, or removed while the alien has an application pending. That means any illegal alien can simply file an application to avoid deportation, and many will, of course, because it could take several years, and probably will take several years, for the Department of Homeland Security to process all applications.

Another disturbing point is there are also no carve-outs for criminal aliens or other dangerous illegal aliens who would normally be subject to mandatory detention. This underlying bill could be interpreted as not allowing the Department of Homeland Security to detain any alien, irrespective of how dangerous that alien is to society.

While the amendment does say an alien may be deported if the alien ``becomes ineligible,'' that is prospective and it means any illegal alien could only be subject to deportation for criminal activity that occurs after they filed their application.

We should be unwilling to create a significant loophole for criminal illegal aliens who could avoid deportation or detention by simply filing an application with the Government.

The underlying bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to allow any alien apprehended before the program is operational, which could be several years down the road, to apply for amnesty after the program is up and running. If it does indeed take several years, that means our immigration enforcement system, which right now apprehends more than a million illegal aliens a year on the southern border, would grind to a halt because any alien who is apprehended could simply file an application or indicate an intent to file an application, and the Government would be required to stop the removal process to allow that to occur.

Mr. President, I know there are other Senators who wish to speak. I am going to stop in a moment to give them that opportunity.

My point is there are many commonsense amendments that I believe would garner the support of a majority of the Senate because they are commonsense amendments. But as long as we are blocked from having those amendments called up and considered and voted on, then there is no way that Members of this body should vote to close off debate, vote for cloture, because we will be producing a product that is simply unworthy of the trust that has been placed in us by the American people. I believe that no individual Senator and, indeed, no leader of either party should be allowed to refuse to allow this process to move forward. I think what is going to happen, because I think we are on a path toward failure--at least between now and Friday--and what we are going to see is the blame game.

There is going to be an attempt by those who have blocked this process from going forward to point the finger of blame at those who have voted against ending the debate because we cannot get a vote on our amendments. I want to make it clear where the fault lies. That blame should be squarely placed at the feet of the Democratic leader, who has denied us an opportunity to have a vote on these commonsense amendments--amendments that I believe the American people would agree with and, if given an opportunity, I believe the Senate would agree with.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/