John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while the majority leader and the Democratic leader are still in the Chamber, I wish to express my gratitude to each of them, as well as the managers of the comprehensive immigration reform bill that is in the Chamber and that we have been debating this week, for the progress we have made. I think it has been in the greatest traditions of the Senate that we have taken a controversial subject where debate that has been long overdue and we have had an open and honest and vigorous debate on many important amendments that have helped improve the bill, from my perspective. But this is the Senate at its best. While we know we will not always agree with one another, there is one place on the face of the planet where we have the freedom, we have the opportunity to have debates and try to build consensus. I know there are some--and I was just on a talk show moments before I came to the floor, and the person hosting that had expressed some frustration about what has been going on here, and I encouraged him to think of this according to the old adage that watching legislation being made is somehow like watching sausage being made. Parenthetically, I note sometimes that we maybe give sausage-making a bad name, but in all sincerity the important thing is that we are having the debate, we are having votes, and majorities are ruling. I do not necessarily always like the outcome of those votes. Sometimes I do. But the fact is that we are having votes and we are letting the process move forward. Hopefully we will have a comprehensive reform bill passed by the Senate, a bill we can be proud of and will then be sent to the President's desk for consideration and possible signature. My hope is we will continue to have this process move forward and have an opportunity to call up additional amendments. I wanted to speak briefly about an amendment I intend to offer not today but at a later time. I have previously spoken about this issue. The compromise bill that is currently in the Chamber contains language that prohibits information sharing and restricts how the Department of Homeland Security may use information submitted in applications. The text in the underlying bill is exactly the same as that contained in the 1986 amnesty legislation. Twenty years ago now, we know from hindsight and experience, those provisions led to hundreds of thousands of ineligible aliens receiving green cards. The amendment I intend to offer does not eliminate the confidentiality provisions. It does, however, state that once an individual's application is denied, there is no longer a need for confidentiality, and that information may be shared with law enforcement personnel, that may be necessary to investigate fraud and bring others to justice. The underlying bill says that information furnished by an applicant can only be used to make a determination on that specific application. The information may also be used in connection with a criminal investigation or prosecution. But if the Department of Homeland Security identifies a pattern of fraud, it would be prohibited from using that information in one fraudulent application to deny another application that was submitted as part of a criminal conspiracy. The same restrictions were included in the 1986 legislation program, and that caused widespread fraud and abuse. There is no reason to treat legalization applications any differently from any other immigration application submitted to the Department of Homeland Security. The New York Times described the 1986 agricultural worker amnesty as ``One of the most extensive immigration frauds ever perpetrated against the United States Government.'' Although the estimated size of the illegal alien population engaged in agricultural work in the 1980s was only about 300,000 to 400,000 out of a total agricultural workforce of 2.5 million, 1.3 million aliens were amnestied under the program. Let me make sure that is clear. Although the estimated size of the illegal alien population engaged in agricultural work in the 1980s was only 300,000 to 400,000, 1.3 million aliens were amnestied under that program. The confidentiality provisions of the 1986 act were credited with causing the widespread fraud and abuse. In 1999, the General Counsel during the Clinton administration testified before the House that ``the confidentiality restrictions of the law in the 1986 amnesty also prevented the Immigration and Naturalization Service from pursuing cases of possible fraud detected during the application process.'' In 1995, a man by the name of Jose Velez, the ex-president of LULAC, was found guilty of immigration fraud after he filed fraudulent applications under the 1986 amnesty. The task force that brought down that particular conspiracy resulted in guilty pleas or convictions of 20 individuals who together were responsible for filing false legalization applications for in excess of an estimated 11,000 unqualified aliens. In other words, 20 people pled guilty to falsified legalization applications for in excess of 11,000 unqualified aliens. Between March of 1988 and January 1991, Velez and his coconspirators submitted approximately 3,000 fraudulent applications. In connection with the 1986 legalization program, there were 920 arrests, 822 indictments, 513 convictions for fraud and related criminal activity. (Mr. Isakson assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4038, previously agreed to, be modified to reflect a technical change in the instruction line of the amendment. The modification is at the desk.

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

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. So, Mr. President, we have had a productive week in the Senate dealing with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. Each of us has perhaps won some and lost some in terms of the amendments we favored or disfavored, but I think it has been a good week for the Senate, a good week for the cause of securing our borders and restoring public respect for our laws. At the same time, as we continue to be a nation that does welcome legal immigration, one of the things that I will say that I hope we continue to focus on is what in our immigration system really is in America's best interest--recognizing that we can't simply open our borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come to the United States or we would be swamped by a veritable tsunami of humanity. We should continue to be a welcoming country but one that respects not only our heritage as a nation of immigrants but also respects our heritage as a nation of laws. Indeed, at this time, we are trying to export that heritage as not only the Democratic country that respects democracy but one that respects the rule of law in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and so we need to tend to business here at home. But as we continue to debate and discuss and hopefully pass laws that are in America's best interest and improve our system, we will look at exactly what type of legal immigration we should encourage. I would ask my colleagues to not only focus on the massive low-skilled immigration that is part of this underlying bill but also focus on those people who have special talents and special educational credentials and experience, highly skilled individuals whom we ought to encourage to come to this country and, if they want to become American citizens, provide them an opportunity to do so. When we look at the costs associated with the underlying bill, what we have learned is low- skilled, poorly educated individuals are more likely to be a financial burden on the American taxpayer than those who are highly skilled and highly educated. Indeed, those highly skilled and highly educated legal immigrants whom we ought to be encouraging to come to the United States and become part of this great country are people who are going to help America to continue to be competitive in the global marketplace. That includes, of course, foreign students who study at our universities. I personally believe that when someone graduates with one of these important advance degrees in math, science, engineering, the very sorts of skills and talents which will make America competitive, we ought to give them preferential treatment when it comes to their application for legal permanent residency and putting them in line for American citizenship, if that is their wish. I hope what is not lost in all of this debate about immigration reform is America's great heritage as a nation of immigrants, our heritage as a nation that believes in the rule of law. What that means to me is we ought to be encouraging legal immigration that is in the best interests of this Nation while discouraging and preventing illegal immigration by comprehensive border security, interior enforcement, worksite verification, and sanctions against employers who cheat, while we also create a legal immigration system to deal with the workforce needs and our prosperity in America going forward. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, May 19, 2006.

Mr. CORNYN. This is not about history. This is about what is also happening even today. I am reminded of the report of the 9/11 Commission and the studies and investigations we conducted after 9/11 which indicated a consensus that we had to bring down some of the stovepipes that prohibited information sharing in our intelligence community. Essentially this amendment is designed to bring down the stovepipes that have prohibited the Department of Homeland Security from sharing information that would lead to discovery of evidence of massive fraud in our immigration system. I hope that when the amendment is called up, when we have a chance to vote on it, my colleagues will support it. But again, this is not just about history. This is about what is happening today. I have in front of me a news release dated May 19, 2006, from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency entitled ``Six People Indicted in Multi-State Amnesty Fraud Conspiracy.'' This is out of Atlanta, GA, which may be of particular interest to the Presiding Officer. Several individuals--it looks like six individuals were indicted by a Federal grand jury on May 9, 2006, on charges of conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to reside unlawfully in the United States and to make false statements in applications presented to the Department of Homeland Security. They were charged in separate counts for making false statements in applications presented to the Department of Homeland Security, and also there were two counts of money laundering. The U.S. attorney in charge described this conspiracy in these words: The six individuals indicted in this conspiracy were involved in a multi-state scheme to solicit immigrants who were illegally present in the United States to file fraudulent applications for amnesty with the Department of Homeland Security. The defendants, as part of a money making scheme, allegedly assisted immigrants who did not meet legitimate amnesty program requirements to file applications containing false statements. This office-- The Office of the U.S. Attorney-- is committed to vigorous investigation and prosecution of schemes such as this one as part of the President's initiative to strengthen enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. The U.S. attorney goes on to say: Not only did these individuals seek to exploit our legal immigration system for personal financial gain, they used their positions as religious leaders to prey upon the immigrant community. That statement was attributed to Ken Smith, special agent in charge of the Office of Immigration and Custom Enforcement. That office is located in Atlanta. He goes on to say: This case highlights the importance of ICE's close partnership with other law enforcement agencies as we seek to dismantle criminal document and benefit fraud networks. Mr. President, I will not read the rest of this news release, but I will ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks this document be made part of the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Meagan Moroney, who is interning with me this week, be granted privilege of the floor for the remainder of this session today.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we split the time between 9 and 10 o'clock, but it was on the pending amendment. The Senator from Massachusetts has yet to call up the amendment. The only speakers who have been heard have been in opposition to the amendment, but the amendment has not yet itself been called up. I want to make sure the balance of the time reserved is still preserved so we do not lose an opportunity to respond to the debate by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, is it correct we have 3 minutes remaining?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona 5 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the clarification that the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Arizona have made. This language has been somewhat fluid, and now I have it in front of me. I think I understand it, and I think I understand what the differences are between our two arguments. Basically, it does retain a certification requirement by the Department of Labor. But the one who decides what the job requirements are and whether the foreign worker actually meets those job requirements is the worker him or herself and not an employer. This is, I believe, insufficient to protect American workers because, essentially, the foreign worker is the judge of his own abilities and also the judge of the job requirement for which the Department of Labor is supposed to certify there are not sufficient Americans available to perform. I think it bears, if not the same, I would say similar defects to the original underlying bill that was amended yesterday to reinsert American worker protections. Let me speak a minute or two about the nature of what this position is. We are now talking, as Senator Dorgan said, about the so-called future flow, people who are not here yet. This has been described as a guest worker program. Senator Kyl and I will be offering an alternative to this so-called guest worker program which we describe as a temporary worker program because I believe this guest worker program is misnamed, mischaracterized, and is in no sense a guest worker program. That is because when you invite guests into your home, you expect at some point they might actually leave. Under this guest worker program, as designed, that never happens. It invites as many as 200,000 individuals a year, under the Bingaman amendment, who can then come into the United States and work for a period of 4 years, and then, under the approach by the Senator from Massachusetts, self-petition for legal permanent residency and then get in line for American citizenship without regard to whether the American economy is in a boom or a bust. In times when the economy is very flat or when we are in recession, it is much more likely that American workers are going to be competing with foreign workers admitted under this so-called guest worker program. I do believe calling this a guest worker program, when in fact it is a path to a legal permanent residency and citizenship, is a misnomer. In addition to damaging the prospects of American workers during times when our economy is not doing well and when there are not a lot of jobs available, it also hurts countries such as Mexico and Central American countries that have seen a massive exodus of their hard-working citizens to the United States, never to return. What we need to do, for the benefit of America as well as the benefit of countries such as Mexico and those in Central America, is to reinstate this historical notion of circular migration; in other words, create a framework where people can come to the United States, qualify to work for a period of time, and then return home with the savings and skills they have acquired working in the United States. A person who works at even modest pay in the United States under a temporary worker program can, in many instances, go back home and live like a king in some of these countries, where their money goes a lot further and where their investment in a home or a small business will thereby create opportunity not just for them but also other citizens in those other countries. I believe if we are ever going to narrow the gap between opportunities available in countries such as Mexico and those in Central America and South America and other countries--which is the basic reason why people leave to come to the United States, to find jobs and work, and we all understand why--we need to find some way of reinstating this pattern of circular migration so people do maintain their contacts and ties with their country and their culture and their family because otherwise we will never be able to satisfactorily address this phenomenon of illegal immigration, no matter what kind of caps we put on it, no matter how many folks we put on the border, no matter whether we build an actual wall or a virtual wall. Unless we find some way of reducing the development gap between countries that are the net exporters of human labor and a country such as America, which is the importer of human labor from all over the world, we are never going to get to the bottom of this problem. So that is another reason why I believe this amendment should be defeated. We will have further discussion later on transforming, I hope, the so-called guest worker program to a true temporary worker program and reinstating circular migration in a way that both benefits America and benefits those countries from which those workers come. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time and yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, less than 24 hours after the Senate voted to protect American workers and to put them first when it comes to competition for jobs in this country, the Senator from Massachusetts has now offered an amendment that would literally gut the amendment that was adopted yesterday and put American workers in the back seat and foreign workers who wanted to come here and participate in a guest worker program in the front seat. President Bush has spoken time and time again about a guest worker program that matches willing workers with willing employers. But Senator Kennedy's amendment would do nothing of the kind. It would allow people to come to the United States and to self-petition without having an employer sponsor their petition, and it would not require proof that an American citizen is unavailable to perform that type of job. Yesterday, the Senate--wisely, in my view--changed the underlying bill to require that American workers be put first before a guest worker could be provided a job and that, under the provisions of this bill, No. 1, they had to identify a job so they would not be here unemployed; and No. 2, that job first be offered to qualified American workers. Then, in that event no American workers were found available to perform that job, of course the guest worker provisions of the bill would kick in. To make matters worse, the Kennedy amendment would allow an alien who has worked a total of less than 40 days in the United States--yes, that is about 6 days a year--to obtain a green card. That employment, 1 day out of every 60, could be self-employment. For some, that track record of employment should be sufficient evidence that the worker is invaluable to the American economy. What that means is that up to 200,000 unskilled workers a year would be eligible for a green card, irrespective of economic conditions, irrespective of whether that worker has actually been employed for the preceding 4 years and, most importantly, irrespective of whether there are unemployed U.S. workers available to fill those jobs. Senator Kennedy had suggested that, by requiring an employer to determine that a qualified worker is not available, that would somehow subject foreign workers to exploitation. But let me be clear: Worker exploitation and abuse will not be tolerated under our laws and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. This amendment has nothing to do with protecting foreign workers against exploitation. What it has everything to do with is whether we are protecting American workers first. With that, I will reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Kennedy is proposing guts the worker protection amendment agreed to by the Senate yesterday. It would do so by allowing workers to self-petition for legal permanent residency if they produce some documents which might indicate they are currently employed, but they will be necessarily retrospective in nature. In other words, you do not have a document necessarily that shows you are employed today or will be employed tomorrow. You may have a pay stub from the last week or the last month. So there is no way to determine whether the individuals who are self-petitioning, under this proposal by the Senator from Massachusetts, are actually going to be working. No. 2, if they are working, there is no protection for American workers--first, that the Secretary of Labor certify that there were no sufficient U.S. workers willing, able, and qualified to perform those jobs. If the proponents of this bill are serious when they say that certain provisions are needed because immigrants will do work that Americans won't do, then they should support the amendment agreed to yesterday and vote against the amendment that has been proposed this morning. President Bush, again, has said the concept of a temporary worker program is to provide additional legal workforce for jobs that there are not enough Americans to perform. Yet this proposed amendment simply sidesteps that requirement entirely. It further represents a shell game insofar as it would only require those workers in this country during an initial 4-year period to work about 6 days a year in order to obtain a green card. This is about truth in advertising. If, in fact, the bill is going to represent something even close to what we have been told the purpose of it is, as represented, we need to make sure the actual language of the bill conforms to that and not pull a fast one on the American people by taking away the very protection for American workers that the proponents of this bill have said are an important part of their legislation. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes and then the remaining period of our time to the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. Mr. President, I respect enormously the contributions that the Senator from Nebraska and the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and Senator Kennedy have made to try to address this problem that has festered for so long and which cries out for resolution. I daresay, as chairman of the Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that I have been trying to make a contribution to that solution, as has Senator Kyl. We have held numerous hearings of our subcommittee. He chairs the Terrorism Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Inasmuch as our border presents national security concerns, we have held many committee hearings to try to, first, find out what the problem is, and, second, try to couple with practical solutions. I appreciate the contributions of each and every Senator who has tried to find a solution to this problem. I recognize this is what some have called a ``fragile compromise''-- that if we tinker with it, all of a sudden it implodes and nothing is going to happen. I personally don't believe that because we have seen a number of amendments offered and accepted during the course of this debate which I believe has done nothing but make this bill stronger and better. I am absolutely committed to seeing passage of a bill out of the Senate and then going to the conference with the members of the House of Representatives. They have some very different views from all of us. If our colleagues from Nebraska and Massachusetts and the senior Senator from Arizona think that they have found some adversaries on some of these points among those of us here, just wait until they get to the conference with Members of the House. Then they will see that we really have a shared vision for comprehensive immigration reform, and we are going to have to work through all of that. But I don't believe it is appropriate to say that this amendment which merely tries to bring accuracy and truth in advertising to this temporary worker program, that it, in fact, be made temporary and not permanent that a guest worker program does not mean permanent residence and American citizenship. I differ with the interpretation of some of our colleagues who say we are trying to replace the normal immigration path with legal permanent residency and citizenship with a temporary worker program. That is not true at all. What we are trying to do is say there is an additional way that people who want to come here and don't want to stay here can come for a while and work in a legal system and then go home, and those who want to become American citizens we ought to provide a reasonable path for them to do so subject to cap, subject to our ability to determine what is in America's best interests. I know the Senator from Massachusetts talked about distinguishing between immigrant populations based on skills, based on talents and their contribution. I say we have every right as a nation to determine what the attributes are of the immigrants we want to come here and contribute to our country, whether they are a net-plus in terms of their contribution. Let's say have engineer, math, or science skills as opposed to low-skilled workers. I think we have a right to make that distinction. This is an important amendment. I do not believe it will gut the bill but will advance it. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kyl and myself, I call up amendment 3969.

Mr. CORNYN. I would be happy with 5 more minutes total.

Mr. CORNYN. I was under the impression there was 15 minutes allotted to Senator Clinton and 15 minutes to me, a total of 30 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. The problem is this, Mr. President: Under the current bill, about 80 percent of the $2,000 paid by undocumented immigrants at the time they apply for a green card or legal permanent residency, 80 percent of that $2,000 fee goes for border security. Ten percent of it goes to administering the process provided for under the underlying bill and another 10 percent for other uncovered administrative costs. In other words, there is an 80-20 split of the $2,000 that are paid by undocumented immigrants at the time they regularize their status, in contrast with the Clinton amendment--the Senator from New York provides essentially an 80, 10, and 10 split, with 80 percent of the money going for border security, 10 percent going to a State impact fund, and 5 percent each for the administrative costs. In other words, rather than an 80-20 distribution, the Senator from New York sets aside 10 percent for the State impact fund, and then retains an additional 10 percent to pay for the administrative costs. The difference between the Cornyn amendment and the Clinton amendment is this: The Clinton amendment takes money away from the program that administers this immigration reform bill in order to pay the State and local taxpayers under the impact fund. I don't think most of our colleagues are familiar with this, but actually the $2,000 that is required to be paid under this bill is not paid at the time that illegal aliens get a H-2C card and remain in the country for approximately 6 years, pending their application for a green card or legal permanent residency. It is only at the time they apply for their green card or legal permanent residency that money is due. So for 6 years, they are able to stay in the country with an H-2C card without paying a penny, while continuing to impose financial burdens on local taxpayers for health and educational costs that are unreimbursed. Under my proposal, they will get money right away as the money and costs are being incurred and not some 6 to 8 years later. Finally, under my proposed fee, which is a surcharge paid, $750, at the very time that a person enters in the system, not waiting 6 years when they apply for their green card. By paying $750 a person and an additional $100 for each family member, this will generate about $7.5 billion in money for this State Impact Fund as opposed to approximately $1.3 to $1.5 billion under the Clinton amendment. Just by way of comparison, in 1986 when the U.S. Congress granted amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants, it set aside $4 billion in taxpayer money to help reimburse the States for these uncompensated costs. In other words, $4 billion for 3 million undocumented immigrants to regularize their status. Yet under this bill, if passed, the bill would regularize four times the number of people. Yet under the Clinton amendment it would only provide $1.3 to $1.5 billion for State impact funds. Under my proposal, which would impose a $750 surcharge at the very time an individual registers for the H2-C program, it would generate $7.5 billion, obviously necessary to pay for the unfunded mandates I mentioned a moment ago. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New York on her amendment. One of the greatest scams the Federal Government has ever imposed upon taxpayers across the country is unfunded Federal mandates, and education costs and health care costs imposed by the Federal Government on local taxpayers without reimbursement is not only unfair, it is a scandal. The estimated annual costs to hospitals and other emergency providers of health care nationwide for undocumented immigrants or illegal aliens, which is mandated but not reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, is $1.45 billion a year. According to congressionally commissioned research, the annual cost to just 24 border counties in my State and in New Mexico and California exceeds $200 million a year. Texans spend more than $4 billion annually on education for the children of illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born siblings. About 12 percent of Texas schoolchildren in K through 12 are children of undocumented immigrants. Texas health care expenditures for illegal aliens are more than $520 million a year. All States--New York, Texas, and all 48 other States--bear the burden of unfunded mandates providing for the health and education of undocumented aliens because we have failed to enforce our immigration laws. Again, the Federal Government is twice culpable. No. 1, it imposes these costs on local taxpayers and local government; and No. 2, the very reason why they are incurred is because of the Federal Government's failure to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. The Federal Government requires, under the IMTALA act, that hospitals treat every person, irrespective of their immigration status. But then Congress fails to secure the border and our local hospitals have become overrun. So while the Government requires hospitals to treat everyone, the Government then fails in its own responsibility to secure the borders or reimburse those health care providers for carrying out their federally mandated obligations. The bill before the Senate fails to reimburse States for the costly burden placed upon their health care system and education system by undocumented immigrants. For example, recent reports are that 70 percent of the children born at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, TX, are born to undocumented immigrants. What will my amendment do? The current Senate bill does not reimburse State and local governments for health care and education costs related to the millions of undocumented immigrants. While the underlying bill creates a State impact assistance account for future temporary workers, it is an unfunded account. The Cornyn amendment would impose a surcharge on any illegal alien who applies for legal status under this bill. Amendment No. 4038 Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside the current amendment and to call up amendment No. 4038 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will yield myself 3 minutes. Also, I yield to the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, 20 minutes. One of the hardest things about this whole subject I think is there are so many assumptions that people make based upon their own experience. How in the world can we put ourselves in the place of some of the individuals that this bill impacts and know what their desires are, know what their aspirations are, know what their relationships are to their country and their family and their culture? I think there are some people who assume if America was to offer individuals from other countries an opportunity to come and qualify and work legally in the United States for a period of time, that they would not want to do that because they would want to stay permanently and they wouldn't want to go back home. I think common sense tells us these individuals love their country, they love their culture, and they love their family as much as we love ours. There is a deep and abiding connection that is not easily severed. The reason why people do sever it is necessity, when they don't have any opportunities where they live so they are willing to do whatever it takes, including leave their country and come to work in the United States. But what they would like--there is at least some segment of these individuals who like to come and work for awhile and then go back home and then maybe come back again and work for another couple of years and maintain their ties to their culture and their country and their family. I would like to point out to our colleagues there is one piece of what I would call objective evidence out there that is not a supposition or an opinion or a guess as to what people's motivations might be. Not too long ago the Pew Hispanic Center took a survey of 5,000 applicants for the Matricula Consular card in the United States. That is basically a Mexican identification card that citizens of Mexico can apply for and receive while living in the United States. Five thousand Mexican citizens applied for the Matricula Consular card and they were asked this question: If you were provided an opportunity to work legally in a temporary worker program in the United States, would you participate, even though it meant that at the end of that temporary period you would be required to go home? Seventy-one percent of the applicants said yes. Yes. I think we are fooling ourselves by thinking that the only folks who want to come to the United States want to stay here permanently and that there are not at least a large segment of people who would participate in a temporary worker program. I hope we don't get too confused about this. There are ways for people to come, immigrate to the United States, and to become legal permanent residents and American citizens. But there are caps on those. There are waiting lists on those. Those are designed with America's best interests involved because, frankly, we can't assimilate everybody who wants to come, as I mentioned a moment ago. I agree with the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain. We don't want unassimilated populations living permanently in the United States who do not speak our language and do not share our values. That has been the great promise and the hope and realization of America that, no matter who you are, how you pronounce your last name, what country you come from, if you believe in our values, you believe in freedom, and you believe in opportunity, that you, too, can become an American if that is what you want. But I believe we ought to provide a reasonable opportunity, based on our national interest, for people who want to immigrate on a permanent basis, and we also ought to provide another category for people who don't want to sever their ties, don't want to come here permanently, they want a job and then they want to go home. That is what this temporary worker provision would provide. It is, in fact, I believe, an honest representation of what the program is, as opposed to the problem that the Senator from Alabama noted and that I noted earlier. This bill, as written, is neither a guest worker program or temporary in any sense. This amendment, I believe, would correct that. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the bill that is on the floor purports to create two different paths to American citizenship for those, first of all, who are in the country living outside of the law in an undocumented status, and secondly, for those who are not yet present in the country but who want to come here at some future date to work. We have given the somewhat misleading name of ``guest worker'' to the so- called future flow, the people who are not yet here. As I pointed out earlier, a guest is not ordinarily defined as someone who moves in with you and never leaves. Rather, a guest is someone who comes into your home or wherever it may be temporarily and then leaves. The title ``guest worker'' to describe the future flow of people coming into the country to work is simply inaccurate. It does not describe what this bill does. First let me talk about the future flow. Under the Bingaman amendment, the Government would authorize the entry of 200,000 people a year who would qualify for an H-2C visa. These so-called guest workers could work here up to 6 years, live, travel, enjoy the benefits of this country short of citizenship, after which they then apply for a green card, whereby they become a legal permanent resident. They then get on the path to American citizenship 5 years later. Rather than a temporary worker, these are individuals who, under this bill, will become first legal permanent residents and then American citizens. Because of that, the title of ``guest worker'' is a misnomer. It is a mischaracterization of what this bill does. I submit it is simply misleading. It is important for us to debate this issue honestly. This is a complicated bill, over 600 pages long. Obviously, the Congress has not debated the issue of comprehensive immigration reform for the past 20 years, since the last time Congress dealt with this in a comprehensive fashion. But at the very least, we ought to require of each of ourselves that we have an honest debate, that we call things what they are and we don't call things what they are not. The Kyl amendment, one I am proud to cosponsor, simply makes the point that a guest worker ought to be temporary. It doesn't sound like a profound amendment but, in fact, it will change the fundamental structure of this underlying bill to make the representation that everyone, from the President of the United States on down to those of us here, believes that a guest worker program is part of a comprehensive solution to the crisis that now confronts our country with our broken immigration system, that, in fact, we are talking about a temporary worker program. That is important for many reasons. Let me mention two beyond the initial reason that we ought to be honest and accurate and clear about what it is we are doing. First, in terms of the future flow of individuals who come into the country to work, it is important that we have a temporary worker program in order to protect American workers. In fact, if we have an influx of 200,000, or whatever the number is, permanent residents and then new citizens in this country, without regard to the fact that our economy is in a boom time when we need those workers or in a bust when we find that those new workers will end up competing with Americans and potentially displacing them from their jobs, it is important that we keep faith with the American people and we protect American workers by being able to dial up or dial down the provisions of this guest worker program in order to meet the demands of our economy. Secondly, Mexico, as an example, which has a 1,600 mile common border with my State of Texas, has seen the mass exodus of some of its best and brightest and hardest working people permanently out of their country to live forever, the rest of their natural lives, in the United States. Now, I believe we ought to have a legal system of immigration and that ought to serve our national interests. But the reason why there is so much pressure put on our borders and on illegal immigration is because when a country's young workers leave permanently and never return, how in the world can that country, whatever the country is-- Mexico, United States, Guatemala, Honduras, or Brazil--how can any country ever hope to create economic opportunity and jobs within that country if its young, hard-working workers leave permanently and never come back? Well, a temporary worker program would allow people to come to the United States and work for a while and then return to their country of origin with the savings and skills they have acquired working in the United States. That would benefit not only the employers who need the workforce--a legal workforce that cannot be satisfied with sufficient numbers of Americans--but it would also satisfy the demands and the needs of their country of origin by providing circular migration--in other words, people coming for a while to work and then going home with the savings and skills they have acquired in the United States. What are they going to do with the money they have earned? Some may decide to buy a home or start a small business in their country of origin. I think that has at least the promise of developing economic opportunity and jobs in those countries that are now a net exporter of people to the United States. It would give them a realistic opportunity of creating jobs for those who, in fact, would prefer not to sever their ties with their home and their family and their culture. It would reinstate this circular migration that would benefit both the United States and their country of origin. I remember some time ago--maybe 2 years ago--I was visiting Guatemala and had lunch with our American Ambassador to Guatemala at his residence. We were talking about American trade policy, and specifically the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which had not yet come to Congress for a ratification vote. What a gentleman from Guatemala told me at that time very concisely--I will never forget--was that they want to export goods and services, not people. I think he said it perfectly. We ought to provide countries such as Guatemala, Mexico, and others an opportunity to do business with the United States in a way that will help them develop their economy, so their people can stay home and enjoy their culture and their country and their family and not feel compelled to leave permanently to come to the United States and never return home. Some have said that, well, what attracts countries such as Mexico to massive illegal immigration of its own citizens is the fact that this last year they received $20 billion in remittances; that is, savings that workers from Mexico earned in the United States while working in the shadows, in the cash economy, in the black market, so to speak. They sent that money home to their family to help support them. Recently, though, a high official in the Mexican Government pointed out to me that it is not a benefit to countries such as Mexico to see their people leave just to send maybe 10 percent or 15 percent of their money or savings back home because if you look at the economic activity that occurs in the United States, they would much rather have that economic activity occur in their country of origin. Let's say, for example, that $20 billion represents a 10-percent savings rate. That means that for the $20 billion that is sent from Mexican workers back to Mexico, there is $180 billion in economic activity occurring in the United States that could occur in Mexico if they had opportunities and jobs there. Obviously, that kind of economic activity feeds on itself and provides greater opportunity for those people and benefits to those people living at home. It takes a lot of pressure of illegal immigration off our borders. Ultimately, I believe in comprehensive immigration reform because I believe that whatever we do has to be built upon a foundation of security. In 2006, national security is about border security. In a post-9/11 world, we simply must know who is coming into our country and the reasons they are coming here. We cannot assume that people are coming here only for benign reasons. We all understand that when people have no hope and no opportunity where they live, they are going to do whatever it takes. Any one of us, assuming we had the courage, would take whatever risk was necessary, including a risk to life itself, to provide for our loved ones. So at a very human level, we understand why people want to come to the United States. But we also know, in a post-9/11 world, that the same porous borders that allow people to come across our borders to work are also available to be exploited by violent gangs such as MS-13, by drug traffickers, by all sorts of people that we don't want in the United States because we have a duty to protect the American people and their security. We also know that in a post-9/11 world, international terrorists can use these same avenues of entry into the United States and potentially create another 9/11, or some similarly catastrophic incident. So we have to have that border security. We also have to have interior enforcement working with local and State law enforcement officials. We also have to have worksite verification, along with secure identification cards that can be swiped through a reader to confirm that the person presenting themselves for work is, in fact, legally authorized to work in the United States. Indeed, the one thing that people point to, when they point to the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty that was granted, is the failure to create a reliable means of verifying eligibility to work in the United States, and along with that sanctions for employers who cheat. It is absolutely critical that we secure our borders, that we work with our local and State law enforcement officials to enforce the law beyond the borders and the interior, and that we provide security at the worksite by providing secure documents and ways for employers to confirm legal authority to work in the United States; then we punish those employers who cheat. If we do that, I believe we can get this problem under control. If we fail to do any part of that, I worry that we will have been engaged in a futile act, and we will have been laboring and debating in vain on this bill. Finally, I believe there are sectors of our economy that create jobs that are not being satisfied adequately by Americans and by legal citizens, legal immigrants in the United States. So I believe that to supply a legal workforce for those sectors that cannot find an adequate workforce among native-born and legal immigrants, we ought to create a temporary worker program, as I have described it a moment ago. This would also have the additional benefit of allowing law enforcement to direct their attention at the real problems and to eliminate from their concerns those who simply want to come here and work in a temporary worker program. Mr. President, I also say that the other part of this amendment deals with those who are already here and who, under the underlying bill, would be able to stay in place and then participate in the H-2C program or those who would have to go to a port of entry and then who could come back in, participate, and get on a path to legal permanent residency and citizenship. This would say that ``notwithstanding any other provision of this act, an alien having non-immigrant status is ineligible for and may not apply for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of such status.'' In other words, temporary means temporary, and that a guest is welcome, assuming they qualify, to come for a time and participate in the benefits of this program but not necessarily be put on a path to a green card or legal permanent residency and citizenship. Now, there are those who say that this kind of plan will not work and that we have no option but to legalize those who are here in place and those who want to come in the future. There are those who say there is no such thing as a temporary worker because America has not shown itself capable of enforcing its own immigration laws and making sure that people whose visas expire, in fact, leave the country at the expiration of their legal authorization. I believe that we can, assuming we have the political will, enforce our laws. We can create humane and realistic laws that provide for our Nation's needs and that serve our Nation's interests and which, incidentally, serve the interests of countries who have young workers who want to come for a while and then return to their country of origin. I don't believe that we are incapable of enforcing our laws. I don't believe we have to throw our hands up and say the only way we can deal with this is to create an opportunity for people to basically stay in place and become legal permanent residents and citizens. It is not that I think that we should not provide that opportunity. In fact, I believe we should do it for those who meet our Nation's capacity to deal with this and who create a realistic cap based on our ability to assimilate those people and for them to become Americans. So I think we can create a category of temporary workers, people who have no desire to stay, and then those who do want to come to our country, assuming that we can establish realistic caps and can then assimilate that population and they could become American citizens, and that we ought to create a reasonable opportunity to do that. But our interests ought to be, first and foremost, what is in America's best interest? What is in America's best interest? I guess I wish that America could open its arms and accept the flood of humanity that might want to come from the four corners of the world, from every oppressed and downtrodden part of the planet. But the fact is that we cannot. We cannot do that without jeopardizing what America is. That is not to say that we would discontinue being the melting pot, where people who want to come legally from any part of the world and become Americans can do so. We ought to provide an opportunity for them to do so, to the extent that it serves America's interests and serves America's needs. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.