Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. The bill is promoted as providing security, but the Border Patrol Association, the former Border Patrol Officers Association, two former chairmen, chiefs of Border Patrol of the United States, former Assistant Attorney General in charge of immigration and security say it will not work, and they are scathing in their criticism and steadfastly reject this bill. I believe it will further diminish, therefore, the rule of law. The procedure used to get us to this point is unprecedented in the history of the Senate. It allows the leadership to approve every single amendment that gets voted on and gives us only 10 minutes in opposition this morning, while the masters of the universe get over 40 minutes, 50 minutes to promote their side. It is typical of the way this debate has gone, and it will breed more cynicism by the public. I have just seen a notice this morning from the Sergeant at Arms to tell us that the telephone systems here have shut down because of the mass phone calls Congress is receiving. A decent respect for the views of the American people says let's stop here now. Let's go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that will work.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know good people have worked on this bill, and they are promoting it as a good step forward on immigration. But our own Congressional Budget Office has answered that question. They have said if this bill becomes law, we will see only a 13-percent reduction in illegal immigration into America, and in the next 20 years we will have another 8.7 million illegals in our country. How can that be reformed? I submit this would be a disaster. The American people, I do not believe, desire to double illegal immigration. That is what this bill--legal immigration. That is what this bill does. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified after I have spoken for 2 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe there is 5 minutes on this side.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I reserve my 5 minutes remaining.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee and would recognize the Senator from South Carolina, thanking him for his leadership. As the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, said, this has been a tough battle. I thank Senator DeMint for his courage. I yield him 1 minute, I believe.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dole and yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina, Mrs. Dole.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would be pleased to use 5 minutes now. I believe some of the other Members I wanted to share time with are available and can speak.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understood it was 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, point of order. The unanimous consent gave the leader 12 minutes. It is now about 12 or 15. Does that override the leader's time?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, under the UC, I think we are well passed the time the leader had, and this side only received 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish we had been given more than 10 minutes, while the other side has been given 40 or 50. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had a hearing with General Lute. Senator Levin presided in his able way, as always. He gave us a short written statement of some of his principles. I thought the American people might appreciate how he approaches this issue. He spoke to people. He said this about this position: To a person, those with whom I have spoken conveyed two clear messages: first, a message of concern for the well- being and safety of our men and women in harm's way; and second, that we would all like to see us pursue a course of action that makes our country safer while safeguarding our national interests in the region. Surely, this is our common ground. He went on to say: But the stakes for the United States are also high. This region--where America has vital national interests--will not succeed if Iraq and Afghanistan do not succeed, and the U.S. plays a vital role in this cause. He went on to say this: No one is satisfied with the status quo: not the Iraqis, not key regional partners, not the U.S. Government, and not the American public. To change this, we are in the midst of executing a shift in course as announced by the President in January. Early results are mixed. Conditions on the ground are deeply complex and are likely to continue to evolve-- meaning that we must constantly adapt. Often, measures that fix one problem in as complex an environment as this reveal challenges elsewhere. That is certainly true. General Lute continued: But one factor remains constant--the dedication and sacrifice of our men and women, military and civilian, serving in these combat zones. They are a continuing source of inspiration to me and to my family. The position for which I have been nominated is designed for one fundamental purpose: to advise the President on how to provide our troops and civilians in the field with increased focused, full-time, real time, support here in Washington. He goes on to say: The aim is to bring additional energy, discipline, and sense of urgency to the process. Our troops deserve this support. I think that is a good statement, a sense of urgency for all our agencies and departments of Government, not just the military. He concludes this way: Mr. Chairman, I am a soldier; and our country is at war. It is my privilege to serve. This position represents a major personal challenge and I am humbled by the responsibility it entails. If confirmed, I will give the President my straightforward, candid, professional advice. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if Senator Levin is comfortable with this, I ask for 3 minutes. If someone comes to the Chamber at 3 and needs to take the floor, I will yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if we are waiting for the vote, I was going to quote a few items from General Lute's statement, but otherwise I don't need to do that.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think Senator Levin and Senator Warner have pointed out the fact that this is not an unprecedented appointment and that it is consistent with what has been done before. People have their own ideas about how the chain of command should work, but that is fundamentally the question to be answered. Let me join with Senator Warner in saying how much I admire the record of General Lute. He is a three-star general. He was a director of operations at the operational section of Central Command for 2 years. He is intimately familiar with the Middle East. He has demonstrated in his positions with the Department of Defense in recent years with the joint staff his willingness to question ideas that many consider popular. In fact, it is reported that he asked a lot of tough questions about the surge, and how that would go, and how it should be handled if done. I think, if anything, we know for sure that he will do what he believes is in America's interests. Let me tell you why I truly believe we need a position such as this and a man like General Lute. We have about 170,000-plus soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are serving us in a dangerous area of the world. We know and have had so many colleagues say--and Senator Levin is most articulate in saying this--it is more than just the military; there is a political settlement, there is reconstruction, there are economic issues involved, oil and gas, water, electricity, which are all key components of having a government effective in Iraq that serves the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is important. The problem is we have all our agencies involved in Iraq, not just the military. We have the State Department involved in Iraq. The State Department is the one responsible for trying to move the Government along in an effective way. They also have responsibility over the economy, trying to help Iraq have a good economy. They are responsible for trying to negotiate safety agreements with its neighbors. They are responsible for infrastructure, actually. They are not responsible for law and order, the court system, and the prison system, which has not gone well at all. I have been a major critic of that situation. That is under the responsibility, not of the Department of Defense but the Department of Justice. If your court system is not working, if you don't have an adequate jail system, if you can't get the water turned on or the electricity turned on, our soldiers are at an increased risk to their safety. So it is absolutely critical that all our agencies of Government work together, agree, work out differences, and create the greatest possible opportunity for those fabulous soldiers we have sent to be successful in helping to create a stable and decent government in Iraq. It is not at the level of cooperation we need. We have not gotten to that level. I am telling my colleagues, I have seen it. The Department of Defense is here, the Department of Justice is here, the Department of State is here. The Department of Defense--probably in frustration, I will say it this way. I said we probably would have been better off just giving everything to the Department of Defense. They are pretty doggone competent in what they do. But the State Department has huge responsibilities in Iraq. Therefore, the Defense Department steps back and they interface, but State has responsibilities, Justice has responsibilities, and Interior has responsibilities in Iraq. Virtually every department and agency does. They are not at the highest level of effectiveness, in my view. It is not as important, I have to say, for Justice to get a court system up and running as it is for the Defense Department because it is their soldiers at risk if we don't create a good justice system in Iraq. I thought we needed somebody such as General Lute to go into Iraq, go into Afghanistan, and find out what is going on and be able to tell the President where the problems are. When there is a dispute between agencies, one person can fix it, and that is the President of the United States. He can say: I want it done this way or your resignation tomorrow, Mr. Secretary. Or you and I have had a long friendship over the years. I want this done, you don't want it done. I will get somebody who will get it done. But how can he know all these different problems that are occurring? How can he personally be on top of it? Likewise for the Secretary of State. She is expected to be in China, to go to Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, Europe, Kosovo, South Korea, or Japan. The National Security Adviser has the whole world under his responsibility. He has to be managing all these issues and personally advising the President. The Secretary of State has to manage all the bureaucracy contained in the State Department. I guess what I would say to my colleagues, it is obvious to me the National Security Adviser cannot drop all of his or her responsibilities and spend his or her time negotiating problems in Iraq. The President is going to have to designate somebody to do that. He has chosen General Lute who is a man, by all accounts, of extraordinary ability, proven experience in the region, a person who knows the difficulties so he can carefully and with good judgment analyze the different disputes and try to get them settled so we can get on with producing more oil and gas, having water for the citizens, having the sewage system working, having the electricity on, and helping to make sure we have a legal system with sufficient bed spaces to detain criminals. I discovered that we have one-ninth as many bed spaces in Iraq as we do in my State of Alabama. I saw a similar story for New York. There are not enough places to put the criminals, and we have to increase those places. The bureaucracy is sitting around and not getting that done. If we catch and release terrorists, they are going to go out and kill again. There have been several articles that have picked up on this situation. I have to say, it has been a theme of mine for 3 years now, and we still haven't gotten the justice system up like we would like it. I see the Presiding Officer, a former attorney general in his State, Senator Salazar. We were together in Iraq and talked about these issues. I know he shares a genuine concern that things are not being accomplished as fast as possible. So I think that operating in the name of the President to try and find out what difficulties are occurring in Iraq, where the bottlenecks are, and being able to get the parties together in the name of the President--he has no direct authority to order the Department of Justice or the Department of Defense to do anything. But he has the authority given by the President. If they can't agree, he can appeal to the President. He can say: Mr. President, the Department of State wants to do this, the Department of Justice wants to do this, the Department of Defense wants to do this. My recommendation is to do this, but you need to make this decision. Then the President can help eliminate these problems. The truth is, when somebody such as General Lute says we have a disagreement between State and Justice and I am inclined to say this is the way it ought to be settled, but the President told me, when I call him tomorrow, to let me know if there are any difficulties, I am going to tell him that you two children cannot agree, usually they get together and settle it. They don't want to have the President come in and settle these disputes and get involved. They know he has a lot of issues on his plate. That is the concept that I think can be helpful in making us more effective in creating the infrastructure, the civil justice system in Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby enhancing the ability of those governments in those countries to be successful, therefore enhancing their ability to be effective against terrorists and violence, therefore reducing the threat to our soldiers--that is the bottom line--and increasing their ability to be successful. I am pleased to support this nomination. I think all the serious questions that have been raised have been answered. I see my friend and colleague from Virginia. He raises a good point about this matter of a uniformed person being in the executive branch, the political branch, I guess one can call it. We have done it before and, in this case, in my view, that concern, while a legitimate one, I believe is outweighed by the fact that we need help right now and General Lute is the guy who can do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask to be notified after 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will somebody yield me some time?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for his insight into the legislation we considered. I guess the Presiding Officer understands, when you have completed a tough campaign and you have talked to voters, you learn some things. Hopefully, our Senate has learned some things: That the heart of the American people is good, that they are not mean spirited, but they are concerned about a lawful system of immigration. I was on an Alabama-based radio show ``Rick and Bubba.'' They are expanding out around the country and do an excellent job and are very fair about immigration. One told me the other morning: Senator, let me tell you my philosophy. My philosophy is that if you have a broken pipe in your attic, and there is water on your floor, you don't go spend all your time mopping up the floor, you fix the leaking pipe. So I guess I would say the failure of the legislation today, despite the good efforts of my esteemed colleagues who met together and wrote this bill--and they did not want anybody to change a jot or tittle of it--despite all of that, despite their good efforts, it did not do the job. It did not shut off the water. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it would only have reduced illegality by 13 percent, and in the next 20 years we would have another 8.7 million people here illegally. I think our Senators--after hearing that and having it pounded in and seeing this is not an exaggeration but an objective report by the Congressional Budget Office, and then we heard the promises: The only way to get a lawful system in America is to vote for this bill--they were not persuaded, especially because the American people saw through it. Rightly, the American people have grown to be cynical about the words of Congress on immigration. They have grown to be cynical about that. For 40 years, Presidents and Congresses have promised we are going to make a lawful system: We are going to do this. Don't worry, I voted for that bill last year. It was going to do this and do that, double Border Patrol--but nothing ever happens. We arrested a million people trying to enter our country illegally last year--a million people. Why do we have that many people arrested? One reason is because the border is known, worldwide, to be insecure and that you have a very good chance of being able to enter the country illegally. If we can change that and we create a clear message around the world that our border is secure and if you come you are going to be apprehended and you will be prosecuted if you come across the border illegally, we could see a dramatic dropoff in that and a dramatic increase of people applying, waiting in line to come legally. That is what it is all about, and this bill did not do it. Now, somebody was saying to me and asking me recently about President Bush and his legacy. I have to tell you, I like President Bush. He is a friend of mine. I believe his heart is good. I believe he wanted to do something good about immigration. I have the highest regard for him. What I would ask President Bush to do with regard to his legacy on immigration would be to carry on at a much more effective and aggressive rate than he has with a movement toward enforcement. He has done things in the last several years to improve immigration enforcement more than the previous four or five Presidents, but it has not been enough. So I would suggest to the President: Make it your legacy to leave a secure border for America. Enforce our current laws. Utilize every effective and appropriate tool we now have, which would make a huge difference. Ask the Congress for what additional tools you need. Let's begin to create a lawful system at the border. As the American people see that and gain confidence in us as a government, then we begin to talk about some of the more difficult problems: What do we do about 12 million people who are here illegally? One of the things that very much concerned me in this bill--and it shows the mindset that seemed to be driving the legislation and was an indication there was no real commitment to enforcement--was moving the date of the people who would be allowed to go on a path to legality and even citizenship to even if you came into our country last year. Now, last year's bill, which I vigorously criticized, said you could take advantage of the amnesty or legalization process if you came into America before January 1, 2004. This bill said you could take advantage of the amnesty--you would not be asked to leave--and you could become an American citizen if you broke into our country before January 1, 2007, this year. So after the President has called out the National Guard, after we have said the border is closed--and it has not been closed; we made some improvement, but it has not at all closed the illegality at the border--but if you could get past the National Guard last December 31 and get into this country, this bill would have put you onto a citizenship path. But that is not what our colleagues told us who supported the legislation. They said it was going to help those people who have deep roots in America who have children here and ones we cannot ask to leave. I am sympathetic to that. I am prepared to work on something like that. But the idea that some single person who broke across the border last December, past the National Guard, is being given all the benefits of citizenship, all the benefits we would give to somebody who waits in line to come legally makes no sense to me and indicates the mindset we have here. The mindset is confused is all I am saying. The President, the executive branch, and the Congress have not yet gotten the message. The message is: We don't want talk. We don't want promises. We want you to get busy and create a lawful system of immigration, and then we can begin to talk about how to deal with people who are here illegally and what our future flow of immigration would be. They had some good ideas in the bill about how to improve the future process by which we select for admission immigrants who desire to come. We know we can't accept everybody. Eleven million people applied for the 50,000 lottery slots we had in the year 2000. It just indicates that the number of people who would like to come here vastly exceeds our ability to admit them all, so we must select some way for those who come. I believe that a touch, a bit, in this bill that tended toward a Canadian-type system was a great first step and should give us a model for future flow. So to my colleagues and particularly to my friend, the President of the United States, whom I respect so much, I would say let's make it a legacy of this Congress and this President to do everything possible, beginning today, to have a secure border in our country. I believe it would be widely approved by the American people. I believe it would be good for our country. It would be a true contribution to American society and put us on the road toward a step to adopting new and better policies for immigration. It is great to see my colleague, Senator Hutchison from Texas. I thank her for her insight and commitment to creating a good system. Being from Texas and having lived with this issue for years and years, she is sympathetic and compassionate to those who want to come to America, but she also understands the need to create a system of laws we can be proud of. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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