John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. And, Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for another question.

Mr. CORNYN. May I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. CORNYN. Isn't it true that this bill for the first time manifests a tremendous Federal commitment to live up to the Federal Government's responsibility to provide additional Border Patrol agents and additional technology along the border to enable the United States of America to finally secure its borders and potentially prevent the incursion of criminals, even terrorists, and that each day that goes by, because of our inability to complete our business here on the floor, potentially exposes the country to further jeopardy in that regard?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for a final question.

Mr. CORNYN. We are running up against a Friday deadline with a 2-week recess of the Senate long standing, and if we are unsuccessful in allowing any votes on amendments which are necessary to move this bill forward, where do you believe the blame would lie for the Senate's inability to successfully finish its work this week on this comprehensive border security and immigration reform bill?

Mr. CORNYN. I urge our colleagues not to table this important amendment, that we have an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor as soon as possible.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Connecticut cares passionately about conditions. So do I, and so do all the Members of the Senate about trying to find a solution. We have dramatic differences between the solutions which have been proposed here and those which have been proposed by the House. But the way I interpret what the House did, it is to send a message to the Senate that first and foremost we need to build a foundation of border security to stop the people streaming across our border--yes, in search of a better life, but we know that mingled amongst those people who come here for economic reasons because they have, perhaps, no hope and no opportunity where they live, there may be a criminal. There may be a terrorist. While there are many people who do care passionately about trying to find a comprehensive solution to this problem, the kind of slow-boating we have seen so far during this debate isn't helping us get to that solution. In fact, we have had three votes on amendments since this bill came to the floor. To those who say: Yes, we want to find a solution; yes, the bill that is on the floor is a good start, but maybe it is not perfect; the best way for us to proceed is to have some votes and to have some debate--that is the way this body, sometimes noted as the greatest deliberative body on Earth, is supposed to work. That is the way democracy works. I may win some of those votes. I may lose some. But let's have debate. Let's build a consensus in the country by building a consensus in this body about where we ought to go to find a solution, and then let majorities govern. Let's reconcile our differences with the House and then send a bill to the President that he will sign that is consistent with our values, consistent with our security interests, and consistent with our economic interests. That is what I want to do. I believe many on the floor of the Senate want to do that. But what we have seen by the fact that the Democratic leadership has objected to allowing us to set aside pending amendments or have votes on pending amendments up until this point is that we have had three votes, and we are running out of time. The leader has allocated 2 weeks to debate this bill and hopefully to finish it by Thursday night or Friday, when we begin the next 2-week recess. But I am getting the distinct impression that the desire is not so much to pass a bill but, rather, to block the kind of democratic process I just described a moment ago from even occurring, to prevent Senators from offering their suggestions by way of amendment and offering those to the Members for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. It bears some resemblance to some of the obstruction we have seen in the past, particularly when it comes to judicial nominations. It prevents the Senate from working its will. It prevents us from protecting the American people. When I say ``protecting the American people,'' I am advised that today, according to current numbers on illegal immigration across our borders, we have about 2,300 people coming each day into our country across our broken borders. Last year, it was 1.1 million people, but today and each day that we fail to protect our borders, each day we fail to deal with this very complex but urgent and important problem, we have 2,300 more people coming across our broken borders. I hope and pray that it is not someone who is bent on doing some harm to innocent life. We know in a post-9/11 world that those who would exploit our broken borders could, if they had the desire, perhaps commit another heinous act like 9/11 within our country. We know that recently, there were those from this body who were investigating the possibility: Can you smuggle the ingredients of a dirty bomb across our borders? Indeed, they were able to do so by producing false identification. So we know America is vulnerable. But how irresponsible would it be to block the ability of this body to consider this bill, to pass it in due course, and to get it on the President's desk? I fear there are those who want to jam this bill, as it is currently written, down the throats of those of us who have a different idea or prevent us from having those votes which are important to letting the process work. None of us has the authority to dictate to others what kind of legislation is going to pass out of this body. I am afraid that is what we are seeing. Those who preferred this particular approach in the Judiciary Committee bill are trying to jam it through the Senate, trying to deny those of us who have different ideas from presenting those ideas and offering them for a vote on the Senate floor. This particular motion to table the amendment Senator Kyl and I have proposed is illustrative of the important changes and improvements that need to be made to this bill. Indeed, if you compare this to 1986, the last time Congress passed an amnesty that failed completely, you will see a lot of similarities between the bill on the floor and that amnesty in 1986--except, believe it or not, the bill that is presently before the Senate is even worse. In 1986, the law said that if you are a convicted felon, if you have committed three misdemeanors, you are not eligible for amnesty. This bill on the floor does not provide that exclusion from the general grant of amnesty. Furthermore, there are some who say: OK, convicted felons, people who commit misdemeanors, but don't exclude from the grant of amnesty the 4- to 500,000 people who have had their day in court, who are so-called absconders, who are under final orders of deportation, because it wouldn't be fair to exclude them from this general grant of amnesty. I disagree. I believe if you have had one bite at the apple or if you have had your day in court, you have had due process of law but you have demonstrated your unwillingness to comply with the lawful order of a court, then you should not be given amnesty so that you can remain in this country because if you are demonstrating by your very first acts, once you have come to this country, that you have no respect for our laws, then how are we to expect that you will ever have respect for other laws that are important for public safety and for the welfare of the American people? Among these 4- to 500,000 people who would be included as absconders that this motion to table seeks to prevent us from excluding under the general grant of amnesty, in 2004, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention and removal operations removed 165,000-plus aliens from the United States. Of those 165,000-plus, 65,000 had been previously formally removed or deported at least one time before. So not only are the people who are sought to be excluded from this general grant of amnesty guilty of violating our laws, many of them are guilty of violating it on a serial basis.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask to be notified when there is 2 minutes remaining and that that time be given to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee if the offering of amendments during the course of a bill's consideration on the floor is the usual procedure to determine where consensus lies and in determining what the will of the Senate ultimately is, and whether the refusal of the Democrats to allow votes on these amendments is obstructing the work of the Senate?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was on the floor last Friday describing what I believed to be a remarkable resemblance between the provisions that deal with the 12 million individuals who are currently in the United States in violation of our immigration laws and the amnesty that was granted in 1986 which was supposed to be the amnesty to end all amnesties. In other words, if we would just agree that the 3 million or so people who entered our country without legal authorization would be given amnesty, we would then have worksite verification and sanctions against employers who hired people in violation of the law, and this problem would go away. As I pointed out then, the amnesty that was granted in 1986--everyone now acknowledges it was an amnesty. And the second thing I think everyone will nearly universally acknowledge is that amnesty was a complete and total failure. I, for one--and I believe there are others in this body--want to make sure we don't make the same mistake twice, and when we ask the American people to have confidence in us, in what we are trying to do to solve a very real problem, they don't take the attitude ``fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'' They don't want to believe, nor should they be asked to believe, that we are engaged in a sleight of hand or a trick. So I believe it is very important that our colleagues focus not only on the amnesty of 1986, but to compare it with the proposal in the committee product which bears remarkable resemblance. One of the areas where it does not resemble the 1986 amnesty is that the 1986 amnesty would bar felons and people who have committed at least three misdemeanors. As Senator Kyl and I pointed out by way of our amendment, we seek to add that requirement back in so that felons and people who committed at least three misdemeanors would not be given an amnesty under the committee proposal. But in this bill--this enormously complex and important bill--details matter. Another example is I reviewed the committee bill over the weekend, and I have some concern that the bill text does not reflect how the bill is actually being described by its proponents. For example, section 602 of the bill states that illegal aliens must comply with the employment requirements. Yet there are no specific requirements for them to meet. Future temporary workers must be continuously employed, but no such requirement exists for illegal aliens. The alien could potentially be employed for one day and still end up qualifying for a green card and then put on a path to citizenship. I urge my colleagues to look very carefully at this bill and to study it because here we found at least two examples of where the bill does not meet the description offered by its proponents; and, No. 2, that those who say that what this bill does for those who are currently here in violation of our immigration laws is not an amnesty, we find that it bears remarkable resemblance to what everyone acknowledged to be an amnesty in 1986 and what everyone pretty much universally acknowledges was a complete and total failure. Illegal immigration has had a dramatic effect on many aspects of our society. It affects our schools, hospitals, and prisons. Dr. Donald Huddle, a Rice University economics professor, published a systematic analysis of those costs as of 1996 and concluded the estimated net cost to the American taxpayer was about $20 billion each year. The population in our country that has stayed here in violation of our immigration laws has doubled since that study was done. So the financial impact picked up not by the Federal Government but by local school districts and local hospital districts and State and other local governments may be as high as $40 billion to $50 billion. Last week, we heard a lot of debate about whether immigration reform needs to address the 12 million aliens already here who have come here or stayed here in violation of our laws and to create a new visa category that would allow future workers to enter our country legally. As I said then, and I will say again now, I support comprehensive immigration reform and I believe our national security requires us to know who is in our country and what their intentions are once here. But I fear that a critical distinction in the debate is being glossed over, and that is whether work visas should be truly temporary or whether we should allow all migrant workers to remain here permanently. First, let me say that there is obviously an important role for permanent immigrants, and I support legal immigration. I noted, as so many others have, that we are a nation of immigrants, and we are the better for it. I support, for example, moderate increases in legal permanent immigration, but I don't support a so-called temporary worker program which is neither temporary nor is it a worker program, but it is rather an alternative path to legal permanent residency and citizenship. More than 23 million immigrants have been issued green cards since 1973, an average of about three-quarters of a million new green card holders each year. But there is also a role for temporary workers in addition to those people who want to immigrate here permanently. I feel strongly that we ought to distinguish between legal immigration, illegal immigration, and we ought to distinguish between people who want to come here temporarily and work but not give up their identity or their citizenship with their country of origin and those who want to be Americans. For those who are permanently going to be immigrating to the United States, I sincerely want all of them to become Americans, and I joined in cosponsoring the amendment with the Senator from Tennessee to help them do that, so they can be assimilated, they can learn English, they can gain access to the kind of education that will allow them to become not only legal immigrants, but to become permanently assimilated into our society and productive citizens. I think we owe that to them and we owe that to ourselves. But there is also a role for those who want to come here for a time and work and then return to their country of origin, people who have no intention of giving up their ties with their country or their culture or their family but who want to come and work for a time and then return with the savings and skills they acquired working in the United States. We have heard a lot of discussion about that from sectors in the economy saying they depend on the workers who come from other countries but that they could work with a temporary worker program to satisfy those needs. There are some who criticize saying that a true temporary worker program is futile and unworkable. They argue that temporary workers will never leave and so we must allow all of them to remain here permanently. I strongly reject what I would interpret as an open borders argument. First, I think it is ridiculous for anyone to argue that the United States neither has the ability nor the will to enforce its immigration laws. Should we not put any limit on how long a visitor can stay in the United States, how long a student can remain in the United States? That argument is a disservice to the hundreds of millions of tourists, executives, workers, and students who do comply with our immigration laws. The United States admits 500 million visitors a year, and only a fraction of a percentage makes the affirmative decision to violate our laws and to stay here. I also believe that effective worksite enforcement will allow workers to work during the term of their visa but then to return once their visa expires. The 1986 amnesty promised that illegal workers would not be able to find work, but here we are today with 5 percent of our workforce using false documents. I will, therefore, not support any reform proposal unless I am confident that illegal workers will not be able to find employment in the United States but for legal channels. If we actually believe we cannot enforce the law, if temporary doesn't mean temporary, if there is no distinction between legal and illegal, we are essentially raising a white flag and saying we will not enforce our own laws. I cannot imagine this great institution taking that position either affirmatively, expressly, or tacitly. I also reject the argument that a true temporary worker visa is inconsistent with the natural migration patterns of workers. The American Lawyers Association states that before 1986, the average length of stay in the United States was only 1.7 years. Since 1986, the amnesty that was created in that year, the length of stay has increased to 3.5 years, up from 1.7 The bottom line is most workers do not want to stay for 6 years, much less permanently. Douglas Massey, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that the 1986 amnesty: Succeeded in transforming a seasonal flow of temporary workers into a more permanent population of settled legal immigrants. He wrote that, prior to 1986: Most immigrants sought to work abroad temporarily in order to mitigate and manage risks and acquire capital for a specific goal or purpose. By sending one family member abroad for a limited period of foreign labor, households could diversify their sources of income and accumulate savings from the United States earnings. In both cases, the fundamental objective was to return to their country of origin--in this case, he says: ``Mexico.'' He argues--and I agree--that the 1986 amnesty actually resulted in a decrease in circular migration. The committee amendment on the floor would do exactly the same thing. It would destroy the incentive for circular migration and the benefits that would accrue--not just to the United States but to the country of origin, to whence the immigrant would return with the savings and skills they have acquired here. In a survey by the Pew Hispanic Center of Mexicans Abroad, they support the argument that migrant workers would participate in a true temporary worker program. Indeed, 71 percent of those surveyed, which were 5,000 applicants for the matriculator consular card in the United States, 71 percent said they would participate in a temporary worker program, even if they knew that at the end of the period of their visas, they would have to return to their country of origin. Finally, our country is enjoying a strong period of economic growth. The economy created almost a quarter of a million jobs in February and has created 2.1 million jobs over the past 12 months--almost 5 million new jobs since August 2003. The unemployment rate is 4.8 percent, lower than the average of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. We may not always enjoy a strong economy, and a true temporary worker program allows our visa policy to adapt to the peaks and valleys of our economic needs. I supported Senator Kyl's amendment in the committee that would limit the number of temporary worker visas if unemployment reaches certain levels. But that amendment means nothing if all workers are on green cards or on a path to legal permanent residency or citizenship. Everyone, it seems, describes their proposal as a guest worker or temporary worker program. But not all temporary worker programs--or at least those sold under the guise of a temporary worker program--are, in fact, temporary. It is important, both to our economy and to American native-born workers who compete with this new workforce, that we modulate and moderate the flow of workers into our country at a time when our economy can sustain them and not take jobs away from people who are born here or who are legal immigrants. It is also critical that we recognize the importance of the restoration of these circular migration patterns which, in fact, benefit countries such as Mexico and in Central America because they are literally being hollowed out: People permanently leaving those countries, making it difficult for them to generate jobs and grow their economy, so that people can stay home if they wish and not have to leave their family and their culture and their country in order to come to the United States to sustain themselves and their families. My point is our colleagues and those in the news media and the American people listening should listen carefully to not only what people call their different sort of worker programs or visas but actually how they function, and insist that if colleagues are going to call a guest worker program a temporary worker program, that it is, in fact, temporary; and that if it is a guest program, that it not be someone who is going to permanently move in with us. Guests, in fact, ultimately are supposed to return and not stay. I realize time is short for this portion of the debate, but I did want to make those points. I know there are other colleagues on the floor who wish to speak, and I will return and make additional comments on other aspects of this bill at a later time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I have no objection.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I certainly don't begrudge the Senator from Vermont the time. I just hope it won't cut into our time and that we will add time to both sides so it will be even, if I understood the request.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted for the duration of the immigration debate to Susannah Prucka, a member of my staff on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on An Examination of the Call to Censure the President on Friday, March 31, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witness List Panel I: Robert F. Turner, Associate Director, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA; Bruce Fein, Partner, Fein & Fein, Washington, DC; Lee Casey, Partner, Baker & Hostetler, Washington, DC; John Dean, White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon, Author, Worse than Watergate; John Schmidt, Partner, Mayer Brown Rowe Maw LLP, Chicago, IL.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Friday, March 31, 2006, at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Uttam Dhillon to be Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and, immediately following the hearing, to consider the nomination of Mark D. Acton to be Commissioner of the Postal Rate Commission.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I return to the floor to speak about the pending amendment to the border security and immigration bill that was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve. I want to explain to my colleagues and anyone else who may be listening why I oppose this amendment. I believe that, while there are many good things in the bill, or amendment, one of the bad things it contains is that it provides amnesty to those who have violated our immigration laws. As I have said before and I will say again, I cannot accept amnesty as part of any comprehensive solution to our immigration crisis. But more important, it is not a question of whether I can accept this as part of the solution. I don't believe the American people will accept amnesty as part of the solution either. Unfortunately, at its core the committee product includes an amnesty. Let me explain in some detail because I think there are those who see amnesty in every solution that has been offered. Some say the guest worker program that the President speaks about is an amnesty. I don't necessarily agree with that because it is a temporary worker program, as he has used that term, not an alternative path to citizenship such as the Judiciary Committee bill. But I do think that there are some things that can justifiably be called amnesty; that is, if words have any meaning. The reason why I conclude that this Judiciary Committee bill provides an amnesty is because it creates a new path to citizenship for approximately 12 million people who have entered our country in violation of our immigration laws. I want to be quick to interject, we understand why it is that people come to America. It is the same reason that everyone wants to come to America, and that is because we are the beacon of hope and freedom and opportunity for the planet. We understand that and we harbor no ill will or grudge against people who simply want to provide for their family. We understand that. But as a sovereign nation, sovereignty implies control of our borders, and we do not have control of our borders today. It also implies that we will do first what is good for America and American interests, and then if we can, and certainly we do, we could go help our neighbor. But we simply can't throw our hands up in the air and say we give up when it comes to controlling our borders and enforcing our laws. First of all, that would violate the sacred oath that we have taken as Senators, as Members of Congress, to defend and uphold the laws of the United States, including the Constitution. So what we are talking about is not a matter of wanting to be unnecessarily harsh or punitive toward those who have come here for what are all understandable and human reasons. But I do not believe the American people will accept a proposal which includes amnesty because they understand that American citizenship is a very special privilege, and they reject the notion that we have no choice but to give it out because the Federal Government has simply failed to enforce the law. I strongly believe that we need comprehensive immigration reform, including border security. I think we need to provide a path to the 10 million people who have come here in violation of our immigration laws, who already live in the United States. But I have a fundamental disagreement with the approach contained in this amendment. I believe we must start with the rule that people who have come to this country in violation of our immigration laws should be required to go through the same process as all other legal immigrants. Let me say that again. I believe we must start with an approach that people who have come to this country in violation of our immigration laws should be required to go through the same process as all other legal immigrants. But this committee product does exactly the opposite. It is a solution of sorts based on weakness and the self-fulfilling prophesy that we cannot enforce our own laws. The message this amendment sends to the American people is that because we can't enforce our immigration laws, the only way to address the 12 million people who have come here in violation of our immigration laws is to reward them with a special pass, a permanent resident status, and citizenship. Some say this legislation--the committee bill--is the only way to realistically deal with people who have come to our country in violation of our laws. But I reject this point of view--this defeatism. In fact, when I hear someone say that only amnesty will work, what I really want to ask them is: Why do we have immigration laws at all? There are those, as I have said earlier, who see amnesty behind every bush and call every proposed solution to the problem amnesty. I am not addressing those people with my remarks today because I don't think they will ever be convinced otherwise. But I do think there are ways to determine whether a proposal is amnesty, and I suggest to you the best way is to look at what this country did in 1986 and to compare the proposal in this Judiciary Committee bill with that 1986 law because that 1986 law is unarguable, undisputed. No one argues that law did not create amnesty. And if there are two things we can agree on, it is not only did it create an amnesty, but it was a complete and abject failure. Amnesty didn't work in 1986 and it won't work today. That is because amnesty encourages disrespect for our laws, and it shows disrespect for those who have earned or are trying to patiently earn U.S. citizenship lawfully. As I have said in this divisive debate, surely we can all agree that the 1968 law was amnesty and that it was a complete failure. Some argue that the committee amendment is not because it is different from the 1986 amnesty. But I don't agree the two proposals are that different. What I would like to do is show this chart to those who are listening and watching. In 1986, these are the elements of the 1986 bill that was signed by President Ronald Reagan. It creates a two-step amnesty process. First, illegal aliens obtain temporary resident status. At the end of that period--just under 4 years--they could apply for a green card. That is for a legal permanent resident. But before they could get that green card, the 1986 bill required applicants for the green card to pay a fee and learn basic citizenship and English skills. If this sounds vaguely familiar, it is because it is exactly the same model carried forth in the legislation voted out of the Judiciary Committee, which is the basic bill that we are working on as part of this debate. As you can see from this chart, both bills--both the Judiciary Committee product that we are now debating and the 1986 amnesty--are strikingly similar. And in some respects--this is really curious--the 1986 amnesty was tougher than the one currently before the Senate. For example, the 1986 amnesty, like the current proposal, required that the person applying for legal status had to be in our country before a specified date. That date was you would have to have entered before January 1, 1982. That is 5 years prior to enactment. And the proposal on the floor says that you have to have come into the country before January 7, 2004. This is an important concept when considering amnesty because there are always reports of rushing to the border by those working along the border as aliens seeking to make their way here to take advantage of the amnesty. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article in the Washington Times entitled ``Illegals Acted on Rumors of Amnesty.'' Part of this article says: Nearly 35 percent of the illegal aliens captured trying to enter the United States in the 19 days after President Bush proposed a still-pending guest-worker program say they were trying to take advantage of what they saw as an amnesty. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in 1968 Congress recognized it was important to grant amnesty only to those aliens who had been here more than 5 years. In contrast, the pending legislation puts the date of eligibility to January 2, 2004, a little over 2 years ago. This chart also addresses other eligibility requirements. As Senator Kyl and I discussed yesterday, the 1986 amnesty required that applicants be admissible under immigration laws and that they not have been convicted of a felony or more than three misdemeanors, compared to the current proposal that simply requires that the applicant be admissible under immigration law; that is, they might still come to the country and be eligible for amnesty even if they are a felon or even if they have committed more than three misdemeanors because of certain de minimis provisions of the immigration law. Hopefully, our amendment will cure that omission, which will now ensure that felons and those who have been convicted of at least three misdemeanors cannot take advantage of the amnesty. My hope is that we will at least make this bill as tough and set standards as high as they did in 1986, which certainly is not the case for the current proposal pending on the Senate floor. Continuing under this chart, in 1986, the law created a new temporary resident status that lasted for 43 months. The current amendment creates a new conditional nonimmigrant status valid for 72 months. That is step 1, a temporary status. Much has been made under the committee proposal about the hurdles that those who are currently in violation of our immigration laws but are nevertheless here in the United States will have to achieve in order to obtain a green card which then, of course, is a pass to citizenship. It is described by critics as a difficult process because illegal aliens will have to learn citizenship skills, pay a fee, pay back taxes, and continue working here in the United States. But as the chart shows, the 1986 amnesty also required applicants to learn basic citizenship skills, including understanding ordinary English and history of the Government of the United States and to pay a fee. But the most important point beyond the similarity of the amnesty in 1986, which everyone agrees was amnesty, the most important point is that we all can see that the amnesty in 1986 did not work and was a complete and total failure. All you have to do is look at the fact that about 3 million people who have come into the country in violation of our immigration laws benefited from that 1986 amnesty. Here we are 20 years later and we are not talking about 3 million people, we are talking about 12 million people, and maybe more. That is part of the reason some people regard amnesty as a magnet that will attract further illegal immigration across our border and only to have us agree to another amnesty and then meet the next wave of people coming across our border who have perhaps a future amnesty. Some people are very upset with the Federal Government and its failure to enforce our laws and to secure our borders. But the American people are a very forgiving people. I think if they believed that Congress is actually trying to solve this problem, as I believe we are, they will perhaps forgive us for not having secured our border before, made sure we had enforceable worksite verification and employer sanctions for those who hired people in violation of our immigration laws. But there is one thing the American people won't forgive; that is, if we try to trick them again by trying to sell them an amnesty in 2006 when they know good and well that the amnesty in 1986 was a complete and total failure. I am earnestly interested in finding a solution to this problem. I believe the better starting point for solving this complex problem is with fairness. That means treating the people who have entered our country in violation of our laws no better than those who patiently wait outside of our country for their chance at the American dream through legal channels. This can be done by allowing those who have come here illegally a second chance to depart and then reenter the country legally. This is the model that was contained in legislation that Senator John Kyl and I introduced well over a year ago. We did so after holding about half dozen hearings on the broken immigration system and ways to fix it. Both of us, like all of our colleagues, but particularly Senators from border States, are earnestly interested in trying to find a way to fix it. But I recognize--and I believe Senator Kyl does as well--that there needs to be flexibility built into any proposal. We recognize there will probably have to be humanitarian exceptions for the elderly or third country processing for those who have no country to return to. Senator Kyl and I are working on proposals to make these concepts work as part of a comprehensive bill. But then for the 12 million illegal aliens in this country, I am confident for their personal situations we would all agree that some special consideration is warranted. No one can test that. But when creating a Federal policy that will impact tens of millions of people in the years to come, there has to be agreement and consensus on a general rule. That is why I disagree with the Judiciary Committee product. The general rule under their proposal is that illegal aliens will be rewarded with a special pass to citizenship and that person will be allowed to break in line ahead of those who have attempted to come to this country legally and are patiently waiting outside the country for their chance. As you can tell, it is no secret that I oppose the committee product. I oppose it because I think it is bad policy and will reward illegal behavior. I believe it is a proposal built on an assumption that our immigration laws cannot be enforced. That is something I will never agree with because that is simply to give up and to admit defeat. But, most importantly, I oppose it because I believe it repeats a mistake that our country made 20 years ago which, if repeated, will never be excused or forgiven by the American people. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, Aug. 2, 2004] Illegals Acted on Rumors of Amnesty (By Jerry Seper) Nearly 35 percent of the illegal aliens captured trying to enter the United States in the 19 days after President Bush proposed a still-pending guest-worker program say they were trying to take advantage of what many saw as amnesty. According to a confidential Border Patrol report to a Senate committee, 1,000 of 2,881 foreign nationals interviewed by agents after their capture at the U.S.-Mexico border between Jan. 7 and Jan. 26 acknowledged that rumors of an amnesty program--outlined in Mexican press reports and passed on by relatives--had influenced their decision to try to enter the United States illegally. Mr. Bush's proposed immigration initiative, formally announced Jan. 7, would allow millions of illegal aliens in the United States to remain in the country as guest workers for renewable three-year periods if they have jobs. The aliens eventually could apply for permanent legal residence. About 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens, mostly Mexican nationals, are estimated to be in the United States. Beginning just days after the Bush announcement, the number of illegal aliens caught crossing into this country from Mexico increased dramatically, immigration-enforcement officials said, although the White House painstakingly has denied that the president's guestworker proposal offered amnesty--saying, instead, it would give illegal aliens holding jobs in the United States temporary work permits, but they eventually would have to go home. Outlined as a set of principles and not as specific legislation, the Bush proposal did not prescribe any penalties for those caught entering the country illegally and would allow those here to remain in the United States for an as-yet undetermined number of renewable three-year periods. The Border Patrol report said 66,472 illegal aliens were apprehended along the U.S.-Mexico border during that 19-day period, about 3,500 a day. The January 2004 total is more than 11 percent higher than the number of apprehensions reported in January 2003, according to patrol records. The report said questionnaires were given to field intelligence agents to interview apprehended aliens on a random basis to determine their ``perception of the proposed temporary guestworker program.'' The questionnaire used the word ``amnesty'' because of the widespread reporting in the Mexican press referring to the proposed program as an offer of amnesty, the report said. The questionnaire was canceled Jan. 26 after its public disclosure. The report said Border Patrol officials determined that the questionnaire's integrity had been compromised by the press coverage. The Border Patrol has denied that the questionnaire was politically motivated or intended to imply that Mr. Bush was calling for a general amnesty, saying, instead, that the agency routinely develops questionnaires to request information from field offices on a variety of issues. ``This practice is critical to providing the Border Patrol with a comprehensive understanding of the border environment,'' the report said. ``The collection of this type of information is an essential tool that enables decision- makers to develop plans and operations specifically designed to counter threats or issues that the questionnaire identifies or confirms.'' The National Border Patrol Council, which represents the agency's 10,000 nonsupervisory agents, said apprehension totals increased threefold in the San Diego area alone, adding that the majority of aliens detained along the border in January told arresting agents that they had come to the United States seeking amnesty. Most of those arrested and eventually deported had no history of immigration violations, the council said. The council has told its members to challenge the guest- worker proposal, calling it a ``slap in the face to anyone who has ever tried to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.'' Congress approved an amnesty program in 1986 that gave legal status to 2.7 million illegal aliens. A CBS News/New York Times poll in January 2004 said no issue upset the public more than Mr. Bush's amnesty/guest- worker proposal, with only one-third of Americans supporting him. And a CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll that same month said 74 percent of respondents thought the United States should not make it easier for illegal aliens to become U.S. citizens. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had asked Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to explain whether ``rumors of amnesty'' concerning the Bush proposal had played any role in attempts by illegal aliens to cross the border. Mr. Grassley told Mr. Ridge in a letter that he was concerned that illegal aliens were risking their lives and putting their futures in the hands of corrupt alien smugglers in an attempt to gain entry to the United States.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Certainly.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to say a few words about immigration reform, but before I do, I want to recognize a blessed occasion of the birth of Caroline Brown Melmed 2 days ago on March 28, 2006, at 3:58 in the afternoon. Caroline's proud father, Lynden Melmed, has been an integral part of my Judiciary Committee staff. He is on detail from the Department of Homeland Security, and he is an expert in immigration law. One can imagine how important he has been in my ability to be effective and advance the debate on this important topic. He and his wife Meredith undoubtedly will be fantastic parents. As the father of two daughters myself, I would tell him it is the greatest blessing one could imagine. I wish them the best in the years to come.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as I pointed out, border security is national security. I see the chairman of the Subcommittee for Homeland Security of the Appropriations Committee on the floor, and he has been a great champion of getting more money allocated for this important effort. But we are a far cry from where we need to be. We can do this if we have the national will and commitment. But our national security depends on border security, and we have to make a credible effort-- indeed, more than an effort--we need to be successful in providing security to our borders in order to keep the American people safe. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to say a few words about immigration. May I inquire first how much time is left on our side?