[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 139 (Wednesday, December 8, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12012-S12013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     INTELLIGENCE REFORM BILL AND COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about what we 
have done here today in passing the intelligence reform bill and say 
that I support this effort. It was a difficult but necessary step to 
making America safer.
  I do not believe we should fool ourselves to think we have actually 
finished the job. By that I mean I think some of the objections that 
had been made to this legislation or I should say some of the proposals 
for additional measures that were excluded from this bill, I believe, 
were well taken. Specifically, what I am talking about is some of the 
security challenges relative to our immigration system, our broken 
immigration system.
  I know many Americans would be shocked to learn that the 19 9/11 
hijackers had a total of 63 validly-issued U.S. driver's licenses. 
Because of this astounding fact, the 9/11 Commission recommended, on 
page 390:

       The federal government should set standards for the 
     issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, 
     such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification documents 
     is no longer just a problem of theft.

  The Commissioners aptly pointed out that ``For terrorists, travel 
documents [can be just] as important as weapons.''
  I am pleased the conference report that we have voted on today and 
passed overwhelmingly includes some needed enforcement measures. But, 
as I say, I do not believe we should stop there. I strongly believe 
that issuing driver's licenses to individuals who are not lawfully 
present in our country has the potential of posing a national security 
risk in a post-9/11 world.
  The example I just mentioned about the 9/11 terrorists: It is well 
documented that Mohamed Atta had a driver's license that was valid 
beyond the date of the expiration of his visa. Inasmuch as he had been 
stopped for an ordinary traffic violation, a lapsed driver's license, 
if its lapse was concurrent with the end of his visa, would perhaps 
have raised a signal which would have caused some additional questions 
to be answered. Of course, I do not want to speculate what the outcome 
of that would be, but it makes sense to me, and I think it makes sense 
to most people, that why in the world would you issue a driver's 
license to someone who is not lawfully present or allow that driver's 
license to extend beyond the date of their visa?
  Driver's licenses, after all, are used for access to airplanes all 
across this Nation; therefore, invalid driver's licenses held by 
someone not lawfully present, or perhaps even fraudulent documentation, 
pose a potential terrorist threat. We know that documents like a 
driver's license also function as a breeder document that is used to 
obtain other official documents, blurring the line between those who 
are in the United States legally and those who are not lawfully 
present. Without strong standards for driver's licenses, we ignore the 
clear security threat of fraudulent documents.
  For all these reasons, I submit that our work here is not yet 
finished until we begin to address this potential threat.
  We are a nation of immigrants, but we are, at the same time, a nation 
of laws, or at least we claim to be. But when America fails to enforce 
its own laws, it becomes more and more difficult to claim, with a 
straight face, that we are indeed a nation of laws.
  We should have no qualms and make no excuses to anyone about 
enforcing our laws in pursuit of our Nation's security, and as the 
Commissioners of the 9/11 Commission pointed out, immigration reform 
goes hand in hand with protecting our security. We should not allow 
ourselves to be distracted or our attention to be diverted from these 
critical issues. No, Mr. President, border security is not anti-
immigrant. As Speaker Hastert has said:

       Immigrants to America are as victimized by terrorists as 
     American citizens.

  I hope we will work promptly next year to carefully reconsider the 
enforcement measures included in the House bill that are not included 
in today's conference report.
  Let me mention some of those provisions in the bill that was passed 
by the House but which are not included in the conference agreement 
that we have passed.
  No. 1, the House required, but this bill does not include, a 
requirement that applicants for driver's licenses show proof of legal 
status in the United States. It does not contain the House requirement 
that temporary licenses should include a requirement that a license 
term should expire on the same date as a visa or other temporary lawful 
presence authorizing document and that the face of the card should show 
the expiration date.
  This bill does not require, but we should require in future 
legislation, that the Department of Homeland Security certify that 
States have met minimum driver's license issuance and document 
standards.
  This bill does not contain, but should contain, or at least future 
legislation should contain, provisions providing for the electronic 
confirmation by State motor vehicle departments of the validity of 
other States' driver's licenses and information.
  This conference report does not contain but should contain and I hope 
future legislation will require that half of our new immigration 
investigators should focus on enforcing our existing immigration laws 
and requiring that each State receive at least three of the new State 
immigration investigators.
  We should also require limits on judicial review of visa revocations. 
We should make it more difficult for terrorists and foreign criminals 
to win delays of their removal from the United States. We should 
explicitly require verification of certain information--such as 
identity, mother's maiden name, or other information--for the issuance 
of birth certificates accepted by a Federal agency. And we should 
require that the States adopt standardized practices for how they 
secure vital records offices.
  Mr. President, I believe that common sense tells us that each of 
these provisions should be the law of the land, and I regret they were 
not able to be included in this legislation. But certainly all that 
means is that our work is not yet done, and we have much left to do.
  I support the measures in the House bill that I have mentioned that 
were not included in this conference report. But the truth is, we need 
comprehensive immigration reform. I come from a border State, one with 
a 1,200-mile border with Mexico, and we know that

[[Page S12013]]

Mexico's back door is the front door to Central America and beyond into 
South America, and that many of our immigration challenges come from 
south of the Texas border, which is, of course, an international border 
between the United States and our neighbor Mexico. It is well 
documented that we have approximately 10 million people who are 
illegally in this country who have come from south of the border and 
other places around the world.

  Here again, I don't know how we can say with a straight face that we 
are a nation of laws while at the same time ignoring this fact. I know 
it won't be easy. Indeed, like so many other challenges that face our 
Nation, few of these issues are easy.
  I know next year we will be dealing with things such as Social 
Security reform, tax simplification, and winning the war on terrorism. 
None of those issues are easy, but we don't give that as an excuse for 
failing to do our duty as Senators. I hope we will not make weak and 
empty excuses for failing to do our duty when it comes to immigration 
reform.
  The need for immigration reform is apparent when we look at the 
challenges we confront in a post-9/11 world. There are some who say: We 
can solve our immigration problems by building a wall between the 
United States and Mexico or we could do it by deploying troops along 
our border.
  That is a vain hope and expectation, if indeed people are truly 
serious about that. The fact is, when you have one of the poorer 
nations of the world right next door to the richest nation, people who 
have no hope and no opportunity where they live will do whatever it 
takes to provide hope and opportunity to their families. You cannot 
build a wall high enough or wide enough to keep people out of this 
country who know only despair and who have no opportunity where they 
live.
  I believe we need to deal comprehensively with this issue in a 
pragmatic way, a way that allows us to call ourselves a nation of laws, 
and create a legal framework that allows us to deal with the present 
reality of our reliance on immigrant labor, some 6 million in the 
workforce in America doing jobs in many instances that American 
citizens would not want to do.
  All you have to do is travel to construction sites all across the 
country. Go to the hotels, the restaurants, to the lawn service 
companies, whatever the nature of the business may be, you will find--
and we know they are there--immigrants who have come from other 
countries who ask for nothing more than the opportunity to work. We 
need and rely on that labor.
  At the same time the demands of homeland security cry out for an 
accounting of who is in our country and why they are here. While I 
suspect--indeed I believe--the vast majority of these people who have 
come here illegally are here because they want nothing more than to 
work and the opportunity to provide for their families, what we need to 
do is account for everyone who is here, why they are here, what their 
intentions are, and to make sure that those who are a threat to our 
country are deported or not allowed to come into our country in the 
first place.
  In order to deal with this issue--both our homeland security, our 
border security, and our economic reliance on the contributions that 
immigrant labor provides and that are important to our economy--we need 
to approach this entire question with a dose of common sense and 
pragmatism that unfortunately has been missing for so long.
  Most of the people who talk about immigration today, I am afraid to 
say, are special interest groups that try to scare the American people 
or, frankly, misrepresent the facts about this important issue. 
Comprehensive immigration reform will allow our law enforcement 
officials to concentrate on those who are indeed a threat while 
acknowledging the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, 
but under a lawful framework which allows us to regain our status as a 
nation of laws.
  To that end, last summer, I introduced the Border Security and 
Immigration Reform Act that would create a temporary worker program, 
allowing immigrants to work in the United States for a limited time, 
then return to their home country with the skills and the savings that 
they have earned. The most important aspect of that bill is that it is 
a work and return program. It is not a pathway to legal permanent 
residency in the United States, nor is it a pathway to citizenship.

  It is not amnesty. I would not support a bill that provides amnesty 
for those who are not lawfully present in the United States. I believe 
what this does is address both the reality on the ground in places such 
as my State and even the great State of Montana, represented by the 
current occupant of the chair. Immigrants make a tremendous 
contribution to the workforce and the economy of all of our States.
  I also believe that the work and return component is important 
because the fact is, if we are ever going to do anything about the root 
causes of immigration, we are going to have to support the efforts of 
the nations that supply these immigrants to help build their own 
economy and to create opportunity and jobs. If we don't do that, then 
the drain of the risk takers, the young and able-bodied, the people 
every economy depends upon in order to do the work and to help boost 
the economy and create opportunity, will continue, and we will never be 
successful.
  I believe both for our purposes and for the purposes of those 
countries that supply immigrant labor to the United States, it is 
important that we have a work and return requirement. I plan on 
reintroducing this measure when we return in January. I believe this 
proposal will enhance America's border security and homeland security 
by allowing law enforcement to focus on the true threats to America and 
those who intend to do us real harm.
  There are as many as 10 million individuals already present in this 
country illegally. Our homeland security demands an accounting of the 
identity of these individuals and their reason for being here and a 
judgment as to whether they pose a danger to our citizens.
  While I believe we have done a good thing here today and that we have 
met the request of the 9/11 families and the 9/11 Commission to deal 
with their concerns in this bill, we have not yet finished the job. 
Indeed, I don't believe we can claim we have finished the job until we 
deal comprehensively with immigration reform. I know it is going to 
take a lot of discussion. This is a controversial area, but I know the 
American people will benefit from a discussion in Congress and from our 
understanding of what their concerns are so we can try to achieve a 
national consensus to deal with this issue which we have neglected for 
far too long. It is because we have neglected it that we are not as 
safe as we should be; nor can we justly claim to be a nation of laws 
while we ignore this present violation, and ignoring those laws when it 
has to do with the immigrants in our country.

  Mr. President, I will talk more about this in January when we return 
but I did not want the occasion to pass without making these few 
comments.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). In my capacity as a Senator from 
the State of Texas, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________